I was responding to the claim that because there is illness, sickness, death, evil, etc, then there could be no God, because if God is omniscient, benevolent, etc, then none of these could be allowed to exist. This is a popular argument in today’s world which rests on a misconception of what the purported goodness of God actually entails (and which I describe as ‘the hotel manager theodicy’). But as those who repeat it likely have no practical experience of what ‘goodness’ entails beyond and above ‘the pleasure principle’, then there’s little use trying to explain it, as it will only result in an interminable argument from incomprehension.

I was responding to the claim that because there is illness, sickness, death, evil, etc, then there could be no God, because if God is omniscient, benevolent, etc, then none of these could be allowed to exist. This is a popular argument in today’s world which rests on a misconception of what the purported goodness of God actually entails (and which I describe as ‘the hotel manager theodicy’). But as those who repeat it likely have no practical experience of what ‘goodness’ entails beyond and above ‘the pleasure principle’, then there’s little use trying to explain it, as it will only result in an interminable argument from incomprehension. — Wayfarer

It just goes to show that those people are judging everything by their own standards.

But the moment one introduces God to the discussion, in order to be consistent, one has to start off with taking for granted that God is omnimax and that God sets all the standards.

The problem of theodicy exists only because people try to explain God on human terms.

:up: That’s pretty well how I see it too but it’s by no means the majority view.

Shall we revisit the Psalms, wade knee-deep in the blood of David's enemies, to see that there is plenty of justification for hostility and violence in the Bible that believers in Jehovah can draw on? — baker

David, fictional or not, represents a person, someone who begged and cried to a higher power while he lost everything he knew and perhaps even more. If you experience a hardship or criminal offense toward your person today, or perhaps toward your nation, and you seek justice, you are no different.

My "mind is not for rent to any god or government".
— Harry Hindu

Don't flatter yourself. ;-) — Wayfarer

"Though his mind is not for rent
Don't put him down as arrogant.
Always hopeful, yet discontent
He knows changes aren't permanent
But change is."
:cool:

Ok, why would we want to call any of those things “god” instead of the names you just used for them? Why not call Logos, “logos”? Also, what you mentioned are a handful of possibilities not scientific definitions for god. That would require a scientific basis for making the connection between those things and god and I don’t see one.

Why use the word "god"? To avoid the dead-end conflict of if there is a god or not. I hate that argument because it is the same over and over again. Also, I think there are psychological benefits to considering universal laws such as the Tao and feel subject to it.

Logos means nothing without definition.

What do you mean by scientific bias? I don't think research is supposed to be biased?

The problem of theodicy exists only because people try to explain God on human terms. — baker

What other terms are there? I would love to open up the discussion of God, and I am getting push back.

Why use the word "god"? To avoid the dead-end conflict of if there is a god or not. I hate that argument because it is the same over and over again. — Athena

I don’t see how that would end the conflict of whether god exists or not. Using the term “god” when what you really mean is the universe or mystery of the universe only confuses the matter. How would it end the conflict?

What do you mean by scientific bias? I don't think research is supposed to be biased? — Athena

“Basis”, not “bias”.

Well I find myself asking questions to God like: "What form do you come in?" , "Do you exist?" , "What is this world we live in?" , and I really don't know what I expect ... I mean, do I think I'm going to get some clear-cut verbal answer in the English language? Will I have some experience that will make me believe in God -- and thus have confidence and trust? What makes me believe in God is the spectacular achievements that we humans have made. And I've also had a mystical experience or two (which I realize can be explained away with science i.e. "It's just a physiological episode that's produced by the chemicals in the brain" -- but that's BORING !) . Anyways, I just want to be confidence and trusting, because sometimes my worry can get in the way of my life...

The problem of theodicy exists only because people try to explain God on human terms.
— baker

What other terms are there? I would love to open up the discussion of God, and I am getting push back. — Athena

I also get ignored. I say, "there is no discernible evidence of any of god's qualities or attributes. We know nothing about god. All we know is that it is possible for it to exist, but not necessary. So... what basis do those have who claim god is this or god is that. It exists but is not real or is real but it is super-existing. Transcends this and transcends that. These are all fantasies, based on an assumption that god must be this way or that way. Well, god does not give us any indication which way god is, so, again, WHY ARE SOME OF US SO PRESUMPTIOUS AS TO CLAIM KNOWLEDGE OF THE QUALITY OF GOD?

This is the third time I ask this question (paraphrased) and I get ignored deeply, soundly, and unanimously, by those who have made actual claims about god.

I guess the silence I encounter to my question is an answer in a way. A very telling answer.

I love your argument and playfully will argue a different way to receiving things. Now, mother nature does not care if we live or die, and if we violate her rules, things will go very badly for us. We could even die. That is how we know she is running the show and the best we can do is figure out how she wants things done and do things her way. It is sort like the Tao, the way it is, we can go with the flow or against it. Denying its existence does not work so well.

I don't know the history of the unknown God. You know, the one that is beyond our comprehension? I think He is mentioned the Bible, along with not using His name and not making images so we do not create a false god. Some people have chosen to go against that wisdom.

I totally like the Greek gods whom I see as archetypes and concepts. I believe fantasies can be very powerful and that incantations of the gods/goddesses can be effective. Calling upon Artemis when I was in a dangerous situation in the mountains, helped me calm down enough to make rational decisions and get to safety. That is not magic. Our brains do what we tell them to do, and our bodies take orders from our brain. The god/goddess concepts are patterns we can use to accomplish what we want to accomplish. But this can seem like magic. That is, if we do not know how our brains work praying to God, can seem to prove that God is very real, and arguing that "there is no discernible evidence of any of god's qualities or attributes" is not a believable argument for those who have had their prayers answered.

I don’t see how that would end the conflict of whether god exists or not. Using the term “god” when what you really mean is the universe or mystery of the universe only confuses the matter. How would it end the conflict?

“Basis”, not “bias”. — DingoJones

Thanks for correct me. :lol: I feel like an idiot for that mistake. Maybe I need to check my medication?

About the argument about if god exists or not, I love to argue with Christians who want to believe I do not believe in God, because as soon as I say I do believe in God, that ruins what they believe about me as a non-Christian. When we argue there is no God, we are proving them right. The Bible tells them about non-believers so when they come across a non-believer, they go," ah, ha, the Bible is right. Here is a non-believer". I don't think proving the Bible right is the right way to go.

So I like to shift the argument to what kind of God makes sense? And here is another thing, Coming from Hellenism- logos, not even the gods can violate the laws of nature. The early god stories were more fantasy than reason, but as the Greeks developed reason, they pulled away from the supernatural and concluded even the gods were limited by the laws of nature. Athena marks a turning point from rule by brute force to rule by law, and that law is not imposed by the strongest person but comes about by arguing until there is a consensus on the best reasoning.

Christianity is a religion of miracles, and rewards and punishments are dished out according to the whims of God and it goes with another supernatural being, Satan. I have no idea how Christians figure if bad things happening are the result of God punishing them or Satan? None of that is cause-and-effect thinking. It is not science. For me, that makes the Christian God, an unbelievable god. I rather argue about what is a believable god than if there is or isn't a god. It is about having a fun argument instead of the futility of arguing against a god Christian's experience every day through prayer.

↪baker
I was responding to the claim that because there is illness, sickness, death, evil, etc, then there could be no God, because if God is omniscient, benevolent, etc, then none of these could be allowed to exist. This is a popular argument in today’s world which rests on a misconception of what the purported goodness of God actually entails (and which I describe as ‘the hotel manager theodicy’). But as those who repeat it likely have no practical experience of what ‘goodness’ entails beyond and above ‘the pleasure principle’, then there’s little use trying to explain it, as it will only result in an interminable argument from incomprehension. — Wayfarer

Oh but God gave man free will. He didn't give that to women who must submit to men. However, in Heaven, there is no free will, because our free will does not go with perfection. :lol:

Thanks for correct me. :lol: I feel like an idiot for that mistake. Maybe I need to check my medication? — Athena

Lol, no problem.

I understand you want to drop the religious mumbo jumbo and think about god in those other terms, but I’ve never understood why some folks keep the term “god”. Why define god so differently that it no longer resembles the religious god at all? Why not just let go of the label and talk about whatever it is you were trying to redefine god to be? (Like love or mystery or the universe...just talk about love, mystery or the universe! Lol)

All we know is that it is possible for it to exist, but not necessary. — god must be atheist

Really? If we know nothing about any of g/G's other "qualities", how do we then know it's even possible (yet not necessary) for it to exist?

I would love to open up the discussion of God... — Athena

Which "God"? I glean from posts above you'd rather avoid discussing whether or not g/G exists, but I don't see how any discussion does not presuppose an existence claim either way (unless by "God" you mean just a referentless, or philosophical, concept and not a 'providential entity' of Abrahamic, Vedic or pantheonic religions).

Really? If we know nothing about any of g/G's other "qualities", how do we then know it's even possible (yet not necessary) for it to exist? — 180 Proof

You are raising the point that existence is a quality or attribute. There is a debate on that. A huge debate. I am on the opinion (feel free to disagree) that existence precedes the ability to have qualities and attributes. Without existence it is impossible to have qualities and attributes. Therefore existence is such a basic quality or attribute, that it can't be a differentiator -- everything in existence has existence, and the qualities and attributes may very well vary. Therefore, since existence is an across-the-board undifferentiated quality or attribute for everything existing, itself existence is not an attribute or quality.

what the purported goodness of God actually entails — Wayfarer

If it entails knowingly allowing children to be sold in to sex slavery where they will sometimes be raped to death, then that is no goodness at all. (If he doesn’t know, or can’t stop it, then that’s an excuse that saves his goodness, but undermines any claims to godliness in the sense people usually mean).

those who repeat it likely have no practical experience of what ‘goodness’ entails beyond and above ‘the pleasure principle’ — Wayfarer

You’ve yet to explain on what grounds (other than because someone just said so, which IIRC you also reject) something can be called good or bad other than the enjoyment or suffering, broadly construed, that it brings about. You’ve stated a narrower construal of hedonism and then named things outside that, but then people like me respond “no I mean that kind of stuff too, that’s still a kind of pleasure/pain and I’m not excluding that from relevance when I say only pleasure and pain matter”.

The problem of theodicy exists only because people try to explain God on human terms. — baker

So the problem is that we are mistaken when we say that child sex slavery is bad, and from God’s perspective that’ must be perfectly fine, since he clearly allows it to happen?

Do atheists actively not want God to exist? — Georgios Bakalis

Personally I am too damned lazy to actively participate in such activities.
And does it really make any difference to the outcome? It either does or does not exist. I guess it might make as much difference as me actively wanting Santa Claus to exist, but I am not really sure about that.

entails knowingly allowing children to be sold in to sex slavery where they will sometimes be raped to death, then that is no goodness at all. (If he doesn’t know, or can’t stop it, then that’s an excuse that saves his goodness, but undermines any claims to godliness in the sense people usually mean). — Pfhorrest

You’re depicting God as a responsible executive, a commander in chief who 'allows' or 'stands by'. It is an anthropomorphic projection. All of those evils are done by human beings, by people. Presumably if they were conscientious Christians (or Hindus or Buddhists), they would never behave in those ways - which is not to say that Christians don't behave like that, but when they do they're obviously flouting their own laws. All of the terrible evils done in the last century - the holocaust, the atomic bomb, the killing fields, the immense loss of life in war - these were all done by people. And people have free will, they're able to behave however they like. If they were programmed to only do good, they'd be mindless automatons for whom good means nothing.

You’ve yet to explain on what grounds....something can be called good or bad other than the enjoyment or suffering, broadly construed, that it brings about. — Pfhorrest

The religions depict a highest good in terms of 'eternal life' or 'Life', capital-L. Obviously a very difficult thing to grasp, and usually portrayed mythologically or iconographically. But I think that in philosophical terms, it refers to a real state, variously portayed as theosis, beatification, Nirvāṇa, and in other terms according to the culture in which it appears. Unlike the 'relative' goods and evils which are characteristic of every existence - the opposites of pain and pleasure, gain and loss, sickness and health, and so on - this is said to be a good that has no opposite, an unalloyed good.

You’re depicting God as a responsible executive, a commander in chief who 'allows' or 'stands by'. It is an anthropomorphic projection. All of those evils are done by human beings, by people. Presumably if they were conscientious Christians (or Hindus or Buddhists), they would never behave in those ways - which is not to say that Christians don't behave like that, but when they do they're obviously flouting their own laws. All of the terrible evils done in the last century - the holocaust, the atomic bomb, the killing fields, the immense loss of life in war - these were all done by people. — Wayfarer

And God has no power to stop people from doing these things? Or doesn't know he needs to? Or he just doesn't bother? Which is it?

NB that "stopping them" could very well just be influencing them mentally, shining a light of empathy and foresight and so on into their souls or whatever, so that they can clearly see why to do good. (See below).

And people have free will, they're able to behave however they like. If they were programmed to only do good, they'd be mindless automatons for whom good means nothing. — Wayfarer

This has always seemed like a very strange conception of free will to me, a sense of "free will" that basically just means "error-proneness". Nobody purposely sets out to do things that they honestly think they shouldn't. They sometimes purposely set out to do things that they know others think they shouldn't, but they clearly disagree since they intend to do them anyway. They also sometimes do do things they think they shouldn't have, and regret it. But those things are the consequence of either ignorance of good, or weakness of will.

If God existed, I would love for him to make me very smart/wise/insightful/whatever such that I am never in error about what the right thing to do is, and also very steadfast/determined/reliable etc so that I never falter from what I assess to be the right thing to do. I would not consider that to be taking my free will away. Rather, I would consider that to be strengthening my will: making me more clear-headed and able to figure out what to do and to see why to do it, and also making me more resolved to see that through. Eliminating errors in my judgement and weakness in the power of that judgement to guide my action. Keeping the wrong influences from causing me to think something's good when it's not, or to do other than what I think is good.

Even if God isn't some physical object that "exists" but just some kind of mental "being" in the hearts and souls and minds of all mankind or whatever, influencing people's thoughts like that should be exactly the kind of thing he should be best at, and the fact that so many people fuck up so hard so often is just as much evidence that he's either not good at doing that kind of thing, or he doesn't care to. (Or he doesn't know he needs to).

Also, there are ills that are not caused by human choices anyway. I'm sure you're familiar with the term "natural evil". Human choices don't cause all disease and predation and natural disasters etc.

The religions depict a highest good in terms of 'eternal life' or 'Life', capital-L. — Wayfarer

An eternal life of unending suffering doesn't sound like a good thing, so presumably this is an eternal life that feels nice in some way, yeah? Still a kind of pleasure, or at least the absence of the pain of mortal life, or at the very least (if it's no more pleasurable of painful than mortal life) an absence of the suffering that comes from fear of death. Still talking about pleasure and pain, enjoyment and suffering.

a good that has no opposite — Wayfarer

Would not the deprivation of it be its opposite? Just as sickness is the deprivation of health, etc.

My question is about your use of the modal term "possible" as "the only known quality of god". Without knowing any other quality, it makes no sense to claim anything about what's "possible". Assuming I'm missing something in your statement, tell me how you know, as you say, it is "possible" (though not "necessary") for "god" to exist. Existence itself is besides the point.

And God has no power to stop people from doing these things? Or doesn't know he needs to? Or he just doesn't bother? Which is it? — Pfhorrest

God is not the kind of super-person you imagine. I understand how that kind of image is imparted by religion, but I think it comes from a misinterpretation of the meaning of the ‘personal’ nature of God.

From the Christian doctrinal perspective, God is always telling humans not to kill, steal, commit evil and so on. That is what ‘conscience’ is. The fact that there are those whose consciences are stunted - like psychopaths - or who choose to disregard it’s urgings, again doesn’t mean there is no such attribute as conscience. Humans are free to disregard it. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

If God existed, I would love for him to make me very smart/wise/insightful/whatever such that I am never in error about what the right thing to do is,. — Pfhorrest

It might work if you actually believed it rather than simply making a rhetorical gesture. Religious people go through a lot to try and realise that state of grace.

Of course there are natural evils, earthquakes, tsunamis, diseases, pestilence. Again, to think of God as a celestial controller unleashing catastrophes on the poor dolts on earth is a rather pagan conception, but then, Christianity has its pagan aspects (like the blessing of the fleet or the ritual praying for rain - these go back to ancient society.) From my perspective, the point about natural evils is that they’re an inevitable aspect of material or physical existence. To be born at all is to be subject to a whole host of hazards and threats. Goes with the territory. The Buddha would say, well, you chose this life, because of your craving for experience, so wise up and work out what keeps driving you to being born over and over.

a good that has no opposite
— Wayfarer

Would not the deprivation of it be its opposite? Just as sickness is the deprivation of health, etc.
4 hours ago — Pfhorrest

Regarding ‘deprivation’ - one of the philosophical doctrines of evil is ‘evil as privation of the good’. It is associated with Augustine. The idea is that evil has no actual being, in the same way that shadows are simply the occlusion of light, and cavities the absence of matter. In Augustine’s philosophy, evil is the absence or privation of the good, if we were to see the true good, then we would realise that evil has no inherent reality.

In a wider context, there is a pan-religious understanding that coming to know [the first principle/ground of being] is itself the source of release from suffering. The aspirant, by realising their identity with the Supreme, thereby is released from all fear of death and suffering. That is a universal theme in religions, although each of them express it in their own cultural idioms.

So the problem is that we are mistaken when we say that child sex slavery is bad, and from God’s perspective that’ must be perfectly fine, since he clearly allows it to happen? — Pfhorrest

No, the problem is that you're taking up a problem that is not yours to begin with.

If you don't believe in God, then the presumed, claimed, or factual actions, qualities etc. of God are none of your business and none of your concern.

Like I said:

The moment one introduces God to the discussion, in order to be consistent, one has to start off with taking for granted that God is omnimax and that God sets all the standards.

The problem of theodicy exists only because people try to explain God on human terms.

And again:

The problem is that you're taking up a problem that is not yours to begin with.

If you don't believe in God, then the presumed, claimed, or factual actions, qualities etc. of God are none of your business and none of your concern.

If you nevertheless stick your nose into things that are none of your business, expect trouble.

Oh but God gave man free will. He didn't give that to women who must submit to men. However, in Heaven, there is no free will, because our free will does not go with perfection. — Athena

IOW, you have knowledge of God? First-hand, certain knowledge of God?

The problem of theodicy exists only because people try to explain God on human terms.
— baker
What other terms are there? I would love to open up the discussion of God, and I am getting push back. — Athena

Presumably, there are God's terms.

I also get ignored. I say, "there is no discernible evidence of any of god's qualities or attributes. We know nothing about god. All we know is that it is possible for it to exist, but not necessary. So... what basis do those have who claim god is this or god is that. It exists but is not real or is real but it is super-existing. Transcends this and transcends that. These are all fantasies, based on an assumption that god must be this way or that way. Well, god does not give us any indication which way god is, so, again, WHY ARE SOME OF US SO PRESUMPTIOUS AS TO CLAIM KNOWLEDGE OF THE QUALITY OF GOD?

This is the third time I ask this question (paraphrased) and I get ignored deeply, soundly, and unanimously, by those who have made actual claims about god.

I guess the silence I encounter to my question is an answer in a way. A very telling answer. — god must be atheist

And whose problem is that?
Do you believe in God?

I also get ignored. I say, "there is no discernible evidence of any of god's qualities or attributes. We know nothing about god. All we know is that it is possible for it to exist, but not necessary. So... what basis do those have who claim god is this or god is that. It exists but is not real or is real but it is super-existing. Transcends this and transcends that. These are all fantasies, based on an assumption that god must be this way or that way. — god must be atheist

Just so as to NOT ignore you - Christians believe that the Bible is the ‘revealed word of God’. What this means is obviously not a simple question. I am not a particularly biblically-oriented person, although I’m also not a ‘scientific materialist’, and the alternatives to materialism seem to be some form of idealism or religious belief. There are not an infinite number of choices. I believe the Bible is in some important sense divinely inspired, but also that it is a mixture of history, witness testimony, confabulation and the work of generations of redactors (biblical editors). So I don’t accept a literalist reading, that the Bible is literally true in all respects, but neither to I believe it’s all confabulation. There are elements of truth, and, I believe, profound truth, in it. After all, both my sons’ marriages included the recitation of Biblical verses, typically from the letters of Paul.

But the point is if you start from the premise that ‘the Bible’ is not the inerrant word of God, but merely a collection of folk-tales and superstition, then of course we know ‘nothing about God’. But from the Christian’s viewpoint, that’s because you’ve already declared that God’s revelation is bogus! You start from the premise that revealed religion is bogus, then say, ‘OK prove that it’s not’. Not possible! If you believe that, good luck and fare thee well, etc. But don’t expect much by way of response, because nothing much can be said about that.

God is not the kind of super-person you imagine. — Wayfarer

It's fine with me if that's how you want to use the word "God", but in doing so you are conceding that he does not have the omni-properties often attributed to him.

Note that in my first post in this thread that you responded to, I didn't say "evil exists therefore God doesn't exist". I said that, as asked in the OP, whether I as an atheist want God to exist or not depends on what you mean by God, and stated the kind of God that I would like to exist: the kind that would make bad things not happen.

God is always telling humans not to kill, steal, commit evil and so on. That is what ‘conscience’ is. The fact that there are those whose consciences are stunted - like psychopaths - or who choose to disregard it’s urgings, again doesn’t mean there is no such attribute as conscience. Humans are free to disregard it. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t real. — Wayfarer

Sure, and I did already say a post or two ago that if that's the kind of thing that one means by God, I would also like for something like that but even more effective at that to exist. Obviously conscience exists, or is real, however you want to phrase that; if that's the thing you mean by "God", then no atheist will argue that "God" in that sense doesn't exist (or isn't real, whatever); they'll just tell you that that's a needlessly confusing way to refer to conscience.

(NB that I used to consider myself a pantheist, and was adamant while I did so that I didn't believe in anything different about the universe than an atheist does, I just thought that the universe fit the criteria to count as "God". What changed between then and now was only that I decided that that was a needlessly confusing way of referring to the universe... and also that a non-personal universe doesn't actually meet all the usual criteria for "God", because personality is a part of those criteria).

It might work if you actually believed it rather than simply making a rhetorical gesture. Religious people go through a lot to try and realise that state of grace. — Wayfarer

I also go through a lot to try to realize that state that I described, and not without any success. So if by "God" all you mean is conscience, then I'm quite "godly" as I aim to be (with some success) quite conscientious.

And circling back to the OP, if all you mean by "God" is conscience, then as I said a post or two ago I would love for "God" to "exist more" than "he" already does: I'd love for it to be easier to discern what is good and easier to follow through on that judgement.

Regarding ‘deprivation’ - one of the philosophical doctrines of evil is ‘evil as privation of the good’. It is associated with Augustine. The idea is that evil has no actual being, in the same way that shadows are simply the occlusion of light, and cavities the absence of matter. In Augustine’s philosophy, evil is the absence or privation of the good, if we were to see the true good, then we would realise that evil has no inherent reality. — Wayfarer

Right, that's what I was referring to. Yet darkness is still the opposite of light, even while it is also only an absence of light, no?

Likewise, on my account of hedonic experience:
- an appetite is the deprivation of comfort or contentedness
- pain is the archetypal appetite, or conversely, every appetite is sort of "a kind of pain"
- pleasure is the feeling of an appetite being sated, e.g. of pain being relieved, and
- a "mystical", "religious", or "peak" experience is a kind of intense contentedness, which is consequently quite pleasurable in contrast to the usual pains of life.

If you don't believe in God, then the presumed, claimed, or factual actions, qualities etc. of God are none of your business and none of your concern. — baker

The presumed, claimed, or factual actions, qualities etc. of God are a factor in deciding whether to believe such a God exists. If you say "God is omnimax" (I assume that means at least that he has the traditional omni-properties of power, knowledge, and goodness), it consequently follows from the existence of that God that nothing evil occurs (because if it did, he would know about it, would want to stop it because he's good, and would have the power to do so). Therefore anything that does occur, including child sex slavery, must be not-evil, or else such a God thus defined must not exist.

And circling back to the OP, if all you mean by "God" is conscience, then as I said a post or two ago I would love for "God" to "exist more" than "he" already does: I'd love for it to be easier to discern what is good and easier to follow through on that judgement. — Pfhorrest

Well, I think that is up to us.

Right, that's what I was referring to. Yet darkness is still the opposite of light, even while it is also only an absence of light, no? — Pfhorrest

Darkness doesn’t oppose light, it is its absence.

a "mystical", "religious", or "peak" experience is a kind of intense contentedness, which is consequently quite pleasurable in contrast to the usual pains of life. — Pfhorrest

The meaning of ‘release’ is release from all suffering, from the very possibility. It’s not like riding a wave or getting a hit or having some intensely pleasurable experience although, particularly in California, that is the way it’s often interpreted. :-)

// ps// where ‘california’ is a symbol for ‘modernity’//