I don't understand why you would think that something that rejects human rationality is a solution to any problem and especially in the context of philosophical thought. — Janus

Rationality? You said "goodness and justice".

Human concepts are the basis of rationality. Positing a purported goodness that is not good according to our understanding of goodness or a purported justice that is not just according to our conception of justice is irrational. Doing this leaves behind the only measures we have. All ratio is lost.

Plato certainly did not believe that the Good was a human invention. That was more the view of Protagoras, 'man is the measure of all things', the ancient forbearer of today's relativism.

Positing a purported goodness that is not good according to our understanding of goodness or a purported justice that is not just according to our conception of justice is irrational. — Janus

The idea that Gods will necessarily aligns with what is good is one of "our" notions of goodness, people just don't necessarily get that it implies that God is fine with human misery. When you do get there you can choose to reject the notion that "God is good" or the notion that "misery is bad", but I wouldn't say either choice makes you irrational.

The other reason is that no mention of an afterlife is posited for the animals, who also suffer. — Janus

Completely agree. Traditional Christian theology is primitive, in this area. But I think we can "expand the circle of compassion" without necessarily moving out of the Abrahamic traditions entirely. (FWIW, I've been an animal-rights advocate -- and vegan -- for decades.)

I still feel that what we experience as divine indifference is understandable in the Augustinian framework of the privation (or deprivation) of the good. We experience this as lack or want - lack of health, lack of ease, lack of sustenance, and lack of love — Wayfarer

But I agree, it's a very deep and difficult issue. — Wayfarer

Yes, and I'm under no illusions that anything I propose could settle the issue. But about privation . . . I don't know whether you've had the misfortune of watching a parent suffer the loss of a child. In such a case, I'm fairly sure the experience is not one of lack or want; it's an active and excruciating suffering. And once again, it's hard to put this down to mere divine indifference. Perhaps, if that's all it was, we might manage to see the experience as a lack of the good, misinterpreted by us as a not-caring. But the problem is that God, in the tradition we're discussing, is posited as caring very much. So we need to square that -- the God of love -- with the creator of a natural world which is clearly hostile or indifferent to human beings. Privation? OK, but why so much of it? And why must children and parents suffer the consequences?

The argument is simple and emotionally powerful: if God is all-powerful and all-good, then why does He allow terrible suffering? — Wayfarer

Accepting that God exists, He could not be Good considering the existence of Evil in the world. Good and Evil are fundamental features of reality, and both are necessary. To my understanding, God must be neutral regarding Good and Evil, so all problems are resolved.

I don't need to read — Janus

Believe me, it is easy to see that you don't read in this area.

From a historically conscious perspective, the whole notion of calling the Christian God evil is unfathomably confused (it's no coincidence that our most cogent illustrations of evil and even of the Problem of Evil come from Christians themselves). Then add the fact that you cannot even produce a substantive reason for why racism is wrong, or should be prohibited. That's pretty standard philosophical-academic problem in the contemporary Anglo-American world: moral truths do not exist and moral claims are not truth apt. Which gives us the average amateur philosopher on TPF saying, "God is evil! Also, evil doesn't exist."

It would be extremely difficult to underestimate the anti-religious thinking sentiment on TPF. What is desperately needed here is reading and information.

So why must we apply the notion of justice to suffering with the presence of of God? There is no other way? — Fire Ologist

replied "No, the reality of a suffering world is incompatible with the usual conception of a tri-omni God."

When you {plural} use the word "God" are you referring to A) the triune God of Christianity, one aspect of whom is a person capable of empathizing with human suffering? Which may be an attempt to reconcile the "notion of justice" with an omniscient abstract God, incapable of suffering . Or B) to the omnipotent (necessary & sufficient) God of Spinoza, which is the non-personal force of Nature, that is no respecter of persons, hence dispenser of impartial natural justice (it is what it is)?

In case A) Justice is whatever God says it is. Or whatever God's interpreters say it is. {natural law or religious law}. In practice, God's law & justice are always filtered through human opinions.

For case B) what happens is often deemed unfair (contrary to my best interest) by sufferers of natural disasters. But we have no recourse to a sympathetic higher authority. So, we can't legitimately complain about injustice.

Yet there is another way : mundane Human systems of Law & Justice.

Aside from ecclesiastical courts, most appeals to Justice are directed to fallible human judgement, despite its spotty record of fair & balanced & accurate dispensation. Ironically, even most secular courts of Justice aspire to divine recompense for suffering (hand on the bible). But, in practice, it seems that most human & animal suffering leaves us with only two options : take opioids to dull the pain, or "suck it up!"

Even so, wronged humans typically look for someone to blame for the Evil stuff, and to praise for the Good stuff. Hence, the notion of divine Justice as an Ideal for comparison with what's Real. Yet, agnostic pragmatic Aristotle placed the blame for suffering on human ignorance & lack of virtue (bad people)*1. So, we're back to reliance on mundane Justice. :smile:


*1. Aristotle viewed good and evil as being about actions and choices, not as inherent qualities. He believed that knowledge and virtue are the hallmarks of good, while ignorance and vice are the causes of evil. Essentially, Aristotle didn't see a separate source of evil in the universe, but rather evil as the result of a lack of knowledge and virtue.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+good+vs+evil

Then why should we listen to Wayfarers conception of God? How many % does he represent? — goremand

The question is not what percentage Wayfarer represents, but what percentage the object of his critique represents. I actually think Wayfarer's critique is applicable to a large percentage of the vocal atheist population, and more importantly, it is applicable to a large percentage of the TPF atheist population.
Beyond that, various people have noted that the critique will not apply to more precise indictments of Christianity, including myself.

Atheists generally get their idea of God from elementary religious education, from interacting with casual believers and from listening to sermons in church directed mainly at casual believers. You can't really blame them for not appreciating these sophisticated, esoteric alternative accounts of God of interest mainly to a small number of theology-inclined people. — goremand

Along the same lines, I think this is just false. The caricatures that atheists present are not found in elementary religious education, among casual believers, or in church sermons—unless the atheist limits themselves to Westboro Baptist sermons, which they may well do.

There is continuity between the academy and the general population. Parishioners learn from pastors who read theologians. They are all on the same page, it's just that there is a time lapse between the academy and the general population. The same holds for atheists, and the general vocal atheist is learning from anti-theologians like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who are themselves wielding the caricatures. Atheists who draw from more able minds are not as vocal (because they are drawing from thinkers like Nietzsche, Marx, Feuerbach, Comte, etc., and these thinkers are much more careful and nuanced in their representations of theism).

Along the same lines, I think this is just false. The caricatures that atheists present are not found in elementary religious education, among casual believers, or in church sermons—unless the atheist limits themselves to Westboro Baptist sermons, which they may well do. — Leontiskos

Let's not overstate things, I'm not saying New Atheism has had no effect on the discourse. People definitely do pick up some unfortunate attitudes, arguments from these science-y public intellectual types. I just can't see someone walking into into a Sam Harris TED-Talk without a preexisting notion God. The seed is already there, so to speak.

There is continuity between the academy and the general population. Parishioners learn from pastors who read theologians. They are all on the same page, it's just that there is a time lapse between the academy and the general population. — Leontiskos

If you say so. My impression is that a lot of stuff gets lost in this game of telephones. The God of the common believer has always felt very "human" to me, he's our father, he loves us, he'll take care of us in the end, etc. A far cry from the timeless, genderless, emotionless, unfathomable "being" all the serious thinkers seem to end up with.

Atheists who draw from more able minds are not as vocal (because they are drawing from thinkers like Nietzsche, Marx, Feuerbach, Comte, etc., and these thinkers are much more careful and nuanced in their representations of theism). — Leontiskos

Well these people sound nice. I wonder why it is that when I spoke of "atheists generally" your mind went straight to Dawkins and Hitchens and not to these guys.

Well these people sound nice. I wonder why it is that when I spoke of "atheists generally" your mind went straight to Dawkins and Hitchens and not to these guys. — goremand

D&H as polemicists have had the most traction on the internet. I guess they are entertaining polemicists, if you like that kind of thing. The New Atheism was a publishing gimmick for a while, and it seems to me that people quickly lost interest. Where I live, neither atheism nor theism interests most people. They seem to be default atheists, with no particular arguments against gods, just a lack of interest. I guess this is our secular age in action.

When I was a young atheist I read mainly pamphlets and listened to secular talks and read Robert Ingersoll.

A far cry from the timeless, genderless, emotionless, unfathomable "being" all the serious thinkers seem to end up with. — goremand

The problem with this esoteric (and sometimes apophatic) version of God is that it's so hard to get people interested in it. Why would they care? Theistic personalism seems to have more vitality.

The seed is already there, so to speak. — goremand

Okay, fair enough.

If you say so. My impression is that a lot of stuff gets lost in this game of telephones. The God of the common believer has always felt very "human" to me, he's our father, he loves us, he'll take care of us in the end, etc. A far cry from the timeless, genderless, emotionless, unfathomable "being" all the serious thinkers seem to end up with. — goremand

I think that's the false inference, though. "The preacher said God loves us therefore he has an undeveloped notion of God." The vocal atheists make that assumption, but the parishioners don't. It is really a kind of circular reasoning for the (vocal) atheist to find that inference plausible.

Christian theism is both philosophically and Scripturally informed, and therefore in that case a "personal" God is not unphilosophical. There are tensions, sure, but that tradition is very old and well-developed. You find the same thing in some other religions too.

I wonder why it is that when I spoke of "atheists generally" your mind went straight to Dawkins and Hitchens and not to these guys. — goremand

I have been talking about vocal atheists (or evangelistic atheists, if you like). That's what I think this thread is centered on, and it's also what seems most pertinent as far as perceptions go. I also think the number of atheists who read Feuerbach & co. is extremely small. Marxism is a larger category, but it isn't as focused on religious debate.

I don't know whether you've had the misfortune of watching a parent suffer the loss of a child — J

We have had personal tragedies in my immediate and extended family, but I’ve never felt that it was something God did. The question ‘how could God let this happen?’ never occurred to me. Quite why is hard to explain, but I suppose it’s because even though I see the sense in saying that God is ‘personal’, I don’t understand God as ‘a person’. I’ve said in the past, that while I’m not atheist, I don’t believe in *a* God.

The idea that Gods will necessarily aligns with what is good is one of "our" notions of goodness, people just don't necessarily get that it implies that God is fine with human misery. When you do get there you can choose to reject the notion that "God is good" or the notion that "misery is bad", but I wouldn't say either choice makes you irrational. — goremand

If God is fine with human misery then he is not good according to the human conception of goodness. Misery cannot but be bad according to that conception. The simple solution is there is no reason to believe in such a God.

Completely agree. Traditional Christian theology is primitive, in this area. But I think we can "expand the circle of compassion" without necessarily moving out of the Abrahamic traditions entirely. (FWIW, I've been an animal-rights advocate -- and vegan -- for decades.) — J

That's a step in the right direction. I just don't see why we need God. I don't personally see any reason to believe in God...I think it all comes down to upbringings and personal conviction. I cannot criticize someone else's personal convictions in this matter because I cannot inhabit their experience.

What I can criticize are rational arguments for the existence of God, and weak apologetics...I've examined them all and none of them work. If you are a believer why not accept that, simply believe on the strength of feeling alone. like Kierkegaard's arational "leap of faith" and leave others to their own feelings in the matter? For many reasons I don't think it is an interesting or fitting topic for philosophical discussion.

When you {plural} use the word "God" are you referring to A) the triune God of Christianity, one aspect of whom is a person capable of empathizing with human suffering? Which may be an attempt to reconcile the "notion of justice" with an omniscient abstract God, incapable of suffering . Or B) to the omnipotent (necessary & sufficient) God of Spinoza, which is the non-personal force of Nature, that is no respecter of persons, hence dispenser of impartial natural justice (it is what it is)? — Gnomon

I was referring to the three omnis: omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. The Chrisitan conception of God is of a loving personal God, one who cares for all his creatures. The nature of His creation (assuming just for the sake of argument that there were such a creator God) belies the conception that God could be all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful. It a pretty easy to understand inconsistency which keeps getting glossed over by believers.

Spinoza's critique of that conception of God can be found in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and a trenchant critique it is. His own conception of God grew out of that critique. Needless to say, Spinoza's God has no concern for humanity or anything else.

The problem with this esoteric (and sometimes apophatic) version of God is that it's so hard to get people interested in it. Why would they care? Theistic personalism seems to have more vitality. — Tom Storm

This is exactly the problem. There is no more comfort to be found in such a God than there is in nature itself as we find it.

Where I live, neither atheism nor theism interests most people. They seem to be default atheists, with no particular arguments against gods, just a lack of interest — Tom Storm

Yes, this is the face of atheism to me as well. The idea that atheism works like an organized religion, with Pope Dawkins preaching his dogma to the faithful, misses the mark in my experience.

Christian theism is both philosophically and Scripturally informed, and therefore in that case a "personal" God is not unphilosophical. — Leontiskos

I think the aspect that you are underselling is that religion isn't just about the "top down" of disseminating doctrine to the masses, but also the "bottom up" of appealing to those masses in the first place. This is true now more than ever, I've seen what a church desperate for membership looks like and it's not pretty. Preachers need a God with charisma, it's in their interest not to make him too "weird".

Now I'm sure some good work has been done to stich together "the God that draws the crowds" and "the God that wins internet arguments" and I don't want to sell that short, but fundamentally that is what I take it to be: reconciling two very different ideas of God created for two very different purposes.

If God is fine with human misery then he is not good according to the human conception of goodness. Misery cannot but be bad according to that conception. — Janus

Exceedingly narrowminded, in my opinion. "Suffering is good" is perhaps a strange and disturbing claim but I wouldn't say it's a literal contradiction in terms. Maybe it is a contradiction under your conception of goodness, but that's all it is: your conception.

Now I'm sure some good work has been done to stich together "the God that draws the crowds" and "the God that wins internet arguments" and I don't want to sell that short, but fundamentally that is what I take it to be: reconciling two very different ideas of God created for two very different purposes. — goremand

You are right to recognize the distinction

To me it seems like equivocation between the God described cataphatically during uncritical in group discussions amongst believers, and the vagueness of the God described apophatically when faced with skeptics.

I'm not seeing the "good work" though. Can you explain?

I'm not seeing the "good work" though. — wonderer1

Neither do I really, but I'm sure someone, somewhere put in a decent effort and deserves a pat on the back. Or at least that's what my intellectual humility compels me to say.

:up: :wink:

We have had personal tragedies in my immediate and extended family, but I’ve never felt that it was something God did. The question ‘how could God let this happen?’ never occurred to me. — Wayfarer

Nor me, in quite that way. I was bringing up this example as a contrast with the idea that such grief is experienced as a privation, a lack, not as an indictment of God.

What I can criticize are rational arguments for the existence of God, and weak apologetics...I've examined them all and none of them work. If you are a believer why not accept that, simply believe on the strength of feeling alone. like Kierkegaard's arational "leap of faith" and leave others to their own feelings in the matter? For many reasons I don't think it is an interesting or fitting topic for philosophical discussion. — Janus

As it happens, I agree with you about the rational arguments. I believe religion begins where philosophy ends. And theology, that halfway house, has never interested me much. But let me push back a little on your final sentence, or at least the "fitting" part. Whether it is true -- whether it's fitting for philosophy to examine rational apologetics -- is itself a philosophical question. The arguments themselves may or may not fit comfortably within philosophical practice. But that too is a philosophical question.

I'm pointing out this peculiarity of philosophy: To consider whether something should be ruled in or out of philosophy is . . . to do more philosophy! And I'm sure you're not saying that the meta-question itself is inappropriate.

Preachers need a God with charisma, it's in their interest not to make him too "weird". — goremand

Okay, but that seems to fly in the face of the weird caricatures from New Atheist types (or their historical antecedents, such as Carl Sagan and Bertrand Russell).

More directly, the Christian claim is that God descends to man in man's hour of need, so it's not surprising that the "bottom-up" part would also be in place. I guess I don't see why philosophical and religious notions of God must be incompatible.

More directly, the Christian claim is that God descends to man in man's hour of need, so it's not surprising that the "bottom-up" part would also be in place. — Leontiskos

That's not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying that in a sense the masses are the ones telling their church what kind of God they want. And the church responds to that, because they are service providers. So there is a conception of God that flows in the other direction, from the bottom to the top.

I guess I don't see why philosophical and religious notions of God must be incompatible. — Leontiskos

It's not that they must be, it's that in my experience they are. And I think there's a plausible reason why.

Surely one of the issues that animates this—and many other—conversations about religion is the disconnect between religious and mythological imagery and the reality of today’s culture. For much of its history, Christianity addressed a largely illiterate population in agrarian or tribal settings. Images of sheep, sacrifice, ploughing, sowing, and reaping resonated deeply with those cultures in a way they cannot for modern industrial society, where primary produce appears shrink-wrapped on refrigerated shelves.

The philosophical question, then, is whether these narratives still contain anything existentially real and relevant—something that speaks to the human condition even if the language has become foreign. This is complicated by the fact that Christianity, as a universal religion, must speak to all people and cannot be elitist. It must present its insights through parables and imagery accessible to the widest possible audience. Yet in doing so, it risks being misunderstood—or ignored—by those who no longer share the cultural frame that once made these symbols intuitive.

This creates a crisis of semantic translatability. The ancient symbols still carry meaning, but it is often obscured or misread outside the world that gave them shape. Joseph Campbell pointed to this when he said modern people need a new mythology—one that speaks to the realities of space exploration, ecological fragility, and inner psychological complexity, rather than tribal cohesion or agricultural renewal. Much of the appeal of interstellar sci-fi may stem from a sublimated longing for heaven. This helps explain the often-noted parallels between Campbell’s Hero’s Journey and the Star Wars narrative—though, admittedly, Star Wars is abundant in spectacle and obviously fictional.

Some theologians and thinkers today are re-framing religious symbols in existential, psychological, or ecological terms. But the challenge is immense, because myth is not just an idea—it is a way of seeing. It shapes how we perceive the world, ourselves, and what we value. Authentic spirituality doesn’t simply affirm; it confronts—it speaks to our deepest fears as well as our hopes. And there are always good reasons to resist that.

A great deal of the heat surrounding contemporary debates about religion arises from the misinterpretation of mythological language. The myths were never meant to be taken as literal reportage; they are symbolic maps of meaning. But when the symbolic is flattened into the literal—or dismissed as mere fantasy—the real depth of what myth once conveyed is lost.

Relevant essay from a few years back, The Strange Persistence of Guilt, Wilfred McCay, The Hedgehog Review. Long read but I found it very insightful.

If God is fine with human misery then he is not good according to the human conception of goodness. Misery cannot but be bad according to that conception.
— Janus

Exceedingly narrowminded, in my opinion. "Suffering is good" is perhaps a strange and disturbing claim but I wouldn't say it's a literal contradiction in terms. Maybe it is a contradiction under your conception of goodness, but that's all it is: your conception. — goremand

I think the idea that misery is bad is universal, or almost universal. Do you really believe anyone thinks it is good to be miserable? I doubt there are any or at least many. It seems it is your assertion that misery could be considered good, that is out of step and is merely "your conception".

As it happens, I agree with you about the rational arguments. I believe religion begins where philosophy ends. And theology, that halfway house, has never interested me much. But let me push back a little on your final sentence, or at least the "fitting" part. Whether it is true -- whether it's fitting for philosophy to examine rational apologetics -- is itself a philosophical question. The arguments themselves may or may not fit comfortably within philosophical practice. But that too is a philosophical question.

I'm pointing out this peculiarity of philosophy: To consider whether something should be ruled in or out of philosophy is . . . to do more philosophy! And I'm sure you're not saying that the meta-question itself is inappropriate. — J

I agree religion begins where philosophy ends. I once was interested in and read a good bit of theology but I found it all very arbitrary and vacuously speculative, ultimately a waste of time.

When I said religion has no place in philosophy I meant religious apologetics and theology. From a phenomenological perspective religion certainly has a place, it is an important aspect of human life. Faith itself is a powerful and important part of the human condition, and since it can be transformative, whole-life altering, it deserves a place in philosophy. Such experiences do not have a place in metaphysics as I see it, because we cannot tell what they really mean or even if they mean anything at all, beyond what they mean to the individual having the experience.

People experience powerful altered states and they cannot help interpreting them to indicate some metaphysical truth or other according to their cultural predispositions. While this process may indeed be of phenomenological interest, it cannot be held to yield any propositional truth, and so could be of no help for metaphysics.

I think the idea that misery is bad is universal, or almost universal. Do you really believe anyone thinks it is good to be miserable? I doubt there are any or at least many. It seems it is your assertion that misery could be considered good, that is out of step and is merely "your conception". — Janus

I’ve met some Catholics, particularly among the Missionaries of Charity, who seemed to believe that misery is a sign of special blessing from God. They wouldn’t say that suffering is good in itself, but they regarded it as a form of grace and they do venerate it. Possibly a sign that the miserable are active participants in the suffering of Jesus.

In Jungian psychology, voluntary suffering refers to the conscious acceptance of life’s inevitable pain as a means of psychological growth and individuation. Rather than repressing or avoiding suffering, Jung believed that facing it willingly—especially the suffering that arises from inner conflict—leads to greater integration of the self. This process often involves confronting the shadow, enduring existential uncertainty, and embracing responsibility for one’s own psychic development. In this sense, suffering becomes meaningful when it is accepted as a necessary passage toward wholeness.

I studied Jung for a year through a Catholic lay analyst in the 1980’s. I guess there is a question about whether Jung should be taken seriously or not. I have little doubt that he was sincere and a friend of my family’s was very close to Jung. but I’m not sure I am convinced by his system.

Jung’s view seems quite realistic to me, although I suppose if you think life ought to be free of suffering then it probably wouldn’t.

I have no real view on suffering. I am interested in road testing various arguments to understand them better. Jung strikes me as an idealist and a mystic and I am not convinced his system is correct, that’s all.