Theodicies as failures of recognition

eligions A icle Theodicies as Failu es o Recogni ion Sa i Ki is ö 1and Sami Pihls öm 2,* 1Facul y o Communica ion Sciences, Uni e si y o Tampe e, Tampe e 33014, Finland; [email p o ec ed] 2Facul y o Theology, Uni e si y o Helsinki, Helsinki 00014, Finland *Co espondence: [email p o ec ed]; Tel.: +358-40-5015535 Recei ed: 10 Oc obe 2017; Accep ed: 28 Oc obe 2017; Published: 1 No embe 2017 Abs ac : This pape examines he e hical ailu e o heodicies by in eg a ing he pe spec i es o philosophical a gumen a ion and li e a y eading and analysis. The pape consis s o wo main pa s. In he i s pa , we p opose an e hical c i ique o me aphysical ealism by analyzing i s inabili y o ecognize he pe spec i al plu ali y and di e si y o su e ing. As heodicies seek o explain how an omnipo en , omniscien , and absolu ely bene olen God could allow he wo ld o con ain e il and su e ing, i can be a gued ha me aphysical ealism—i.e., he hesis ha he wo ld possesses i s own undamen al s uc u e independen ly o human pe spec i es o concep ualiza ion and inqui y— is a p oblema ic s a ing poin o heodicism. We examine he ailu e o ecogni ion o o he s’ su e ing inhe en in heodicies as a ailu e based on he sea ch o an o e all educ i e and objec i ying pic u e (a “God’s-Eye View”) ha is cons i u i e o me aphysical ealism. The second pa o he pape shows why we should include insigh s om imagina i e li e a u e in ou a emp s o unde s and he ecogni ion ailu es o heodicies. Emphasizing he li e a y, philosophical, and heological ele ance o a ious mode n ew i ings o he Book o Job, which has been a c ucially impo an sub- ex o many la e li e a y wo ks in which he p o agonis s ende a pa icula kind o human expe ience—unme i ed su e ing—we u n mo e closely o some li e a y examples, such as Joseph Ro h’s no els Hiob and Die Rebellion. The ensions ha a e c ea ed a ound he mo al con o e sy o he expe iences o injus ice and su e ing and he human and eligious easoning and jus i ica ion o iolence a e examined. The ambiguous ending o Hiob ha adds an appa en ly hope ul and almos ai y ale-like edemp ion o he s o y plays a c ucial ole in he in e p e a ion p o ided in he pape . By analyzing some li e a y examples and hei ela ion o he li e a y Job adi ion, he ecogni ion- ailu es o heodicis a emp s o p o ide meaning in o su e ing—a emp s based on me aphysical ealism, as a gued in he i s pa o he pape —a e highligh ed. Finally, we also c i ically conside he cha ge ha heodicism could only be heo e ically o mula ed and a gue ha a sha p dis inc ion be ween heo y and p ac ice in his a ea is i sel an ac o non- ecogni ion, o a ailu e o ecognize su e ing. Keywo ds: su e ing; heodicy; heodicism; an i heodicy; an i heodicism; ealism; me aphysical ealism; ecogni ion; acknowledgmen ; li e a u e; he Book o Job; Ro h, Joseph 1. In oduc ion Theodicies, seeking o jus i y “ he ways o God o man,” a emp o iew human su e ing om an o e all me aphysical and/o heological pe spec i e. F om such a pe spec i e, all appa en ly unnecessa y and meaningless e il and su e ing he e seems o be in he wo ld we li e in is ende ed in some sense “meaning ul” o a leas necessa y o he o e all goodness o he ha monious wo ld sys em. While heodicies ha e been p oposed by bo h classical and con empo a y hinke s h oughou he his o y o heis ic hough (and he e a e, a guably, also secula heodicies a ailable in he discussion), he e is a g owing adi ion o mo al c i icism o heodicies d awing a en ion o hei a guably s iking insensi i i y o human su e ing (see, e.g., Be enson 2016). This adi ion dese es u he philosophical Religions 2017,8, 242; doi:10.3390/ el8110242 www.mdpi.com/jou nal/ eligions Religions 2017,8, 242 2 o 18 sc u iny, bu i also needs o be ca e ully examined wha he peculia insensi i i y ypical o heodicies ac ually consis s o . The e o e, a key aim o his pape is o o e an e hical c i ique o me aphysical ealism by analyzing i s inabili y o ecognize he pe spec i al plu ali y and di e si y o su e ing, in e p e ing he ailu e o ecogni ion o o he s’ su e ing inhe en in heodicies as a ailu e based on he sea ch o an o e all educ i e and objec i ying pic u e (a “God’s-Eye View”) a guably cons i u i e o me aphysical ealism. In addi ion o engaging heodicies and hei me aphysically ealis backg ound assump ions by philosophical a gumen and c i icism, we will show why i is i al o include insigh s om imagina i e li e a u e in se ious a emp s o unde s and he ecogni ion ailu es o heodicies. Emphasizing he li e a y, philosophical, and heological ele ance o a ious mode n ew i ings o he Book o Job, a c ucially impo an sub- ex o many la e li e a y wo ks add essing unme i ed su e ing, ou pape mo e closely analyzes some li e a y examples, such as Joseph Ro h’s no els Hiob and Die Rebellion ha ake a c i ical s and on any o e a ching pe spec i e on indi idual su e ing. A guing ha heodicism ypically ( hough no s ic ly speaking logically) p esupposes me aphysical ealism, as bo h assume he a ailabili y o a “God’s-Eye View” heo y o why he e is e il and su e ing (i.e., God’s easons o allowing he wo ld o con ain appa en ly meaningless and unnecessa y e il and su e ing on he massi e scale amilia o us on a daily basis), we will no only a gue agains heodicism by c i icizing i s backg ound assump ions bu also (indi ec ly) agains me aphysical ealism i sel by p o iding easons o ejec ing i s ( ypical) consequence, heodicism. Me aphysical ealism and heodicism will hen ul ima ely collapse hand in hand. Howe e , we should also o obse e ha his collapse does no lead o a ejec ion o ealism ou cou . Ra he , an i heodicism— he iew ha abandons he en i e p ojec o heodicy, as will be explained in mo e de ail below—needs a mode a ely ealis unde s anding o humanly speaking objec i e eali y and u h, bu i is p ecisely he human dimension o his need ha is no adequa ely a ailable wi hin me aphysical ealism. Le us s a wi h some concep ual p elimina ies made explici in some o ou ea lie wo k, especially Kan ian An i heodicy (Ki is ö and Pihls öm 2016). We p opose o de ine heodicy and heodicism simply wi h e e ence o he a emp o p o ide a jus i ica ion o appa en ly senseless (meaningless, absu d) su e ing. Gene ally, we may say ha heodicies seek a jus i ica ion, legi ima ion, and/o excusing o an omnipo en , omniscien and absolu ely bene olen God’s allowing he wo ld (His c ea ion) o con ain e il and o allowing humans and o he sen ien beings o su e . Classical o mula ions o heodicies can be ound, o example, in Augus ine’s and his nume ous ollowe s’ appeals o God’s ha ing c ea ed human beings wi h eed will as he eason why he e is e il, and in G.W. Leibniz’s posi ion, o mula ed in his amous Théodicée(1710), acco ding o which God could no ha e c ea ed any be e wo ld han he one ha he, as omnipo en and absolu ely good, did c ea e; acco ding o his Leibnizian heodicy, we li e in “ he bes possible wo ld,” and while he e is indeed some e il he e, i is necessa y o he o e all good. Leibnizian heodicies a e good examples o pu ely me aphysical a emp s o explain he place o e il wi hin he absolu e di ine ha mony o he wo ld; i does no aim a a mo al jus i ica ion o God’s allowing su e ing bu a a me aphysical excuse explaining why e en he bes possible wo ld may include some e il—o e en qui e a bi . Mo e ecen examples o heodicies include a emp s o e i e “ ee will heodicies” and “soul-making heodicies” by majo philosophe s o eligion such as Richa d Swinbu ne and John Hick. Classical a heis a gumen s based on he p oblem o e il and su e ing ha e, in u n, been p esen ed by philosophe s like Da id Hume and J.L. Mackie, while se e al con empo a y hinke s ha e p oposed “de enses” in ended as mo e mode a e han heodicies p ope , sugges ing ha he e is a possible wo ld in which God has good easons o c ea e and main ain a wo ld in which humans and o he sen ien beings su e ho ibly, wi hou necessa ily claiming ha possible wo ld o be ac ual, o claiming ha we would be able o know God’s ac ual easons (c ., e.g., Van Inwagen 2006). Now, by “ heodicism,” we may e e o all hose a emp s o deal wi h he p oblem o e il and su e ing ha ega d heodicy as a deside a um o an accep able heis ic posi ion, i espec i e o Religions 2017,8, 242 3 o 18 whe he hey end up de ending heism o ejec ing i . The heodicis can, hen, e y well be an a heis , inso a as hey conclude ha God does no exis (o p obably does no exis , o ha he e is no jus i ica ion o he belie ha God exis s) p ecisely because he heodicis deside a um canno be ul illed. Also hose who p opose a me e “de ense”—ins ead o a heodicy p ope —can be ega ded as heodicis s in he sense ha hey also seek o de end God and accoun o God’s jus ice by a guing ha , o all we know, God could ha e e hically accep able easons o allow he wo ld o con ain e il and su e ing, e en he kind o uly ho ible e il and su e ing amilia o anyone wi h adequa e mo al sensi i i ies in he wo ld we li e in. By “an i heodicism,” in con as , we may mean he ejec ion o any such, o indeed any, heodicies, o be e , o he e y p ojec o deli e ing a heodicy o he a i ude o encou aging o equi ing engagemen in such a p ojec . Theodicism and e iden ialism— ha is, he iew ha he a ional accep abili y o eligious belie s should be e alua ed on he basis o he ( eligiously neu al) e idence ha can be p esen ed o and agains hem—a e closely connec ed. As mains eam philosophy o eligion oday is (albei wi h signi ican excep ions) ela i ely s ongly e iden ialis , a leas in a b oad sense, i comes as no su p ise ha i is also o en s ongly heodicis when dealing wi h he p oblem o e il and su e ing. Acco dingly, he exis ence o e il and su e ing is in mos cases o mula ed as an empi ical p emise challenging he heis ic belie in an a gumen a i e exchange sea ching e idence in suppo o , o agains , he heis ic hypo hesis. This is so i espec i e o whe he he p oblem o e il is ega ded as a logical o as an e iden ial p oblem (c . Rowe 2001). The heis ic goal is o espond o he a heis s’ “a gumen om e il.” Jus like heodicism is a no ma i e iew acco ding o which any a ionally accep able heism ough o o mula e a heodicy (o a leas ake s eps owa d he di ec ion o a heodicy by o mula ing a mo e mode a e “de ense”), e iden ialism is a no ma i e epis emological iew acco ding o which any a ionally accep able heism ough o be de ended by means o e idence, o a ional conside a ions mo e gene ally. Theodicism is, hen, a speci ic dimension o e iden ialism: i ies o ell us how we should discuss he p oblem o e il when e il is ega ded as a piece o e idence agains heism ha he heis needs o deal wi h. A philosophical c i ique o heodicism is, he e o e, a c i ique o he en i e a gumen om e il and i s use in bo h heis ic and a heis ic discou se. In his sense, again, ou conside a ions in his essay will ha e a me aphilosophical dimension. I seems o us— hough we canno de end his iew he e (bu c . Ki is ö and Pihls öm 2016)— ha he philosophically mos in e es ing and p o ound disag eemen lies no be ween heism and a heism o be ween eligious belie e s and nonbelie e s, bu be ween he o e all e hical and eligious a i udes o su e ing (and, hence, o eali y gene ally) adop ed by heodicism and an i heodicism. While he link be ween heodicism and e iden ialism seems o be ela i ely clea , he ela ion be ween heodicism and ealism, especially me aphysical ealism, has no been s udied in any g ea de ail in p e ious li e a u e. We will y o a gue ha me aphysical ealism is one o he mos p oblema ic backg ound assump ions o heodicism—jus as i is a p oblema ic s a ing poin in many o he philosophical a eas o inqui y, including a ious ecen heo ies o he sel , o dea h, and ela ed ma e s (see Pihls öm 2016). By me aphysical ealism we may he e simply mean he iew ha he wo ld possesses i s own undamen al on ological s uc u e independen ly o ou pe spec i es o concep ualiza ion and inqui y and can, he e o e, in p inciple be uly and comple ely desc ibed om an absolu e s andpoin (i.e., a “ iew om nowhe e,” o a “God’s-Eye View,” as i we e). Me aphysical ealism is, in ac , a conjunc ion o a ious mo e speci ic o ms o ealism, especially on ological, seman ic, and epis emological. A e hese in oduc o y ema ks and concep ual p elimina ies, we may i s u n o an analysis o he philosophical commi men o me aphysical ealism as he backg ound assump ion o heodicism and hen o in e p e a ions o some li e a y mani es a ions o hese ideas. As will be explained in he concluding sec ion, ou de ense o an i heodicism is also in an impo an sense humanis ic—and we may hope ha his emphasis on humanism is (implici ly) highligh ed by he hea y ole played by li e a y eading and analysis in ou a gumen . Religions 2017,8, 242 4 o 18 2. Theodicy and Me aphysical Realism: Agains Reduc i e Objec i ica ion Le us b ie ly conside an example explici ly e e ing o he deep connec ion be ween ealism and heodicism ha we ha e only in a ske chy and in oduc o y way in oked abo e. Pe e By ne (2003) a gues ha ealism is needed in he philosophy o eligion pa ly, o e en p ima ily, because esponding o he p oblem o e il by deli e ing a heodicy p esupposes ealism. By ne sugges s ha heism needs o inco po a e a “gene ic o e o a heodicy,” and his equi es a ealis ic concep ion o he di ini y conjoined wi h mo al eleology and a concep ion o a “ inal good” o human li e (By ne 2003, p. ii). By ne’s basic cha ac e iza ion o ealism says ha “ he go e ning in en behind he concep o God is o e e o an ex a-men al, ex a-mundane, anscenden en i y” (By ne 2003, p. 6). While heodicies may no be explici ly in oked in ealism discussions in he philosophy o eligion, By ne seems o main ain ha he en i e ealism deba e is la gely mo i a ed by he need o p o ide a heodicy— ha is, by heodicism (as we ha e called i abo e): The need o p oblem is ha o inding a esponse o e il. In pa icula , [ eligions] a ise ou o he human pe cep ion ha he appa en o de o he wo ld a ound hem is no a mo al o de ; i is indi e en o he achie emen o human happiness and he ealisa ion o human goodness; i p esen s i sel as blind and indi e en o jus ice. I is he job o a eligion on his accoun o o e human beings a heodicy. (By ne 2003, p. 17) I is p ima acie su p ising o hea ha eligions should o e us heodicies, as one migh hink ha his is he job o heology (o pe haps o he philosophy o eligion) a he han eligion i sel . Be ha as i may, By ne insis s ha “a eligion is any se o symbols (and associa ed ac ions, a i udes, eelings and expe iences) p o iding human beings wi h a solu ion o e il by way o a heodicy”; mo e gene ally, eligion is “ ha p opensi y in human beings (howe e g ounded) o espond o e il by seeking he kind o meaning [ . . . ] associa ed wi h he en e p ise o heodicy” (By ne 2003, p. 18). Realism is needed o eligion, because p o iding a heodicy in okes a “mo al and p o iden ial causali y in he wo ld” anscending na u al and human powe s as well as a ela ional concep ion o he human good as “a ma e o li ing in igh ela ion o he sou ce o he p o iden ial, mo al o de pos ula ed as esponse o e il” (By ne 2003, p. 18). The p og am o de ending ealism in he philosophy o eligion hus includes, By ne main ains, a c i ique o he e y cohe ence o an i ealis iews o good and e il. 1 An i heodicism a gues ha he kind o heodicies By ne and many o he philosophe s o eligion de end— heodicies ei he seeking o philosophically jus i y o legi imize God’s allowing appa en ly unnecessa y and meaningless e il and su e ing, o o e ing some secula p oxy o his adi ional heological p ojec —amoun o a colossal e hical ailu e o ecognize he su e ing o he and he u e poin lessness o hei su e ing. Ins ead o aking o he s’ su e ing mo ally se iously, heodicies (as well as he only allegedly mo e mode a e “de enses”) a guably ins umen alize su e ing in he se ice o some pos ula ed o imagined o e all good. Such an e hical a gumen o an i heodicism, ocusing on he mo al need o app op ia ely ecognize he eali y o su e ing, o o ake e il se iously, can d aw om a ious sou ces, including William James’s (1907) p agma ism, Wi gens einian philosophy o eligion (e.g., Phillips 2004), as well as pos -Holocaus Jewish mo al e lec ion exempli ied by Emmanuel Le inas (2006) e hics o o he ness, all o which can be in e p e ed as undamen ally Kan ian o mula ions o an i heodicism (Ki is ö and Pihls öm 2016, chps. 3–5). These an i heodicisms a e, 1 On he o he hand, a heis c i icisms o heism, based on he a gumen om e il (e.g., J.L. Mackie’s well-known logical a gumen ), ha e also been a acked because o hei commi men o axiological o mo al ealism, a s anda d assump ion in he heodicy discou se. Conside especially (Ca son 2007). Ca son c i icizes Mackie’s p oblema ic combina ion o mo al e o heo y and assump ion o mo al ealism in his o mula ion o he logical p oblem o e il. Mackie, a amous c i ic o mo al ealism and heism, seems o assume he u h o mo al ealism in his discussion o he p oblem o e il by (a guably) assuming ha pain and su e ing a e mind-independen ly bad o e il. The issue, hen, conce ns he mu ual (in)cohe ence o Mackie’s iews on e hics and eligion (o a heism). This a gumen ob iously a ge s Mackie in an ad hominem ashion, bu i may each a mo e gene al lesson o he need o conside he cohe ence among he a ious assump ions conce ning ealism and an i ealism we make in di e en a eas o philosophical inqui y. Religions 2017,8, 242 5 o 18 we may sugges , “Kan ian” no because hey would necessa ily explici ly e e o Immanuel Kan ’s own c i icism o heodicies (o he Kan ian heo y o “ adical e il,” o ins ance) bu because (i) hei mo al c i icism o specula i e me aphysics can (implici ly) be aced back o Kan ’s 1791 “Theodicy Essay” and i s ejec ion o heodicies as iola ions o he limi s o human eason (based on he gene al app oach o Kan ian c i ical philosophy), and (ii) hey a guably seek o show ha heodicies iola e he necessa y condi ions o he possibili y o adop ing a mo al pe spec i e on he wo ld and o he human beings. (Fo o he in luen ial an i heodicis conside a ions in he con empo a y discou se on e il, see, e.g., Be ns ein 2002;Neiman 2002.) An i heodicis s a e usually no only non-e iden ialis s bu also non- ealis s (a leas in he sense o ejec ing me aphysical ealism), hough no o ha eason necessa ily an i ealis s. This is so whe he hey s a om Wi gens einianism (e.g., Phillips), p agma ism (e.g., James), o Jewish pos -Holocaus e hics (e.g., Le inas). 2 Fo example, Le inas seems o main ain ha he me aphysically ealis a emp o occupy a o alizing God’s-Eye View on o he s’ su e ing is he sou ce o heodicis immo ali y. 3 Phillips, in u n, ega ds anscenden heis ic accoun s o mo al goodness as mo ally co up ing, as hey do no acknowledge he “poin lessness” o e il. By ne’s (2003, pp. 132–35) me aphysical mo al eleology and his heodicism based on me aphysical ealism a e hus diame ically opposed o Phillips’s posi ion. The bone o con en ion seems o be ha while o By ne goodness ul ima ely se es cosmic di ine pu poses, o Phillips goodness is non- eleological, “pu poseless” (jus like e il, analogously, is poin less) (By ne 2003, p. 134). Me aphysical ealism, hen, is he key issue di iding hese wo hinke s and in i s way explaining hei di e gence ega ding heodicies. Fu he mo e, i can be a gued ha William James’s (1907) p agma is c i icism o he “absolu e” (and Hegelian monis ic idealism, o him he pa adigma ic o m o me aphysical ealism) is also p ima ily e hical; he me aphysical c i ique is based on he e hical unaccep abili y o he absolu e yielding an i esol able heodicy p oblem. Why exac ly is ealism a key issue he e? We p opose ha his is because me aphysical ealism, a leas ypically i no ine i ably, educ i ely objec i ies— ha is, ends o iew as me e objec s in he wo ld—some hing ha eally canno (and e hically ough no o) be iewed as me e objec s among o he s “ou he e” in he mind-, p ac ice-, and discou se-independen wo ld: i s o all God (easily, albei pe haps no ine i ably, leading o a kind o simplis ic an h opomo phism) as well as, secondly, o he s’ su e ing ( educed in o me e p ocesses in he objec i e empi ical wo ld), 4 and hence also, hi dly, o he ness i sel . Such objec i ica ions a e in s iking con as wi h Le inas, in pa icula , o whom he o he is mo e undamen al han any objec -subjec s uc u e—and wi h (e.g., Jamesian) p agma ism, which also e uses o pos ula e a p e-s uc u ed eali y independen ly o human alua ional pu sui s and p ac ices. The c ucial poin he e is ha by educ i ely objec i ying hings ha a e beyond objec i ica ion, heodicism based on me aphysical ealism also o e looks he di e si y and pe spec i al na u e o bo h su e ing and human beings’ indi idual ( eligious o non- eligious) esponses o su e ing. 5 In o he wo ds, me aphysical ealism and he heodicism based upon i a e essen ially de ached iews when i comes o esponding o o he s’ su e ing; ins ead o being in ol ed and engaged, 2 These di e en an i heodicisms a e a gued o no only belong o he Kan ian adi ion o an i heodicism bu also o be indeb ed o Kan ’s (1791, Kan 1983) eading o he Book o Job (emphasizing Job’s since i y and u h ulness) in Ki is ö and Pihls öm 2016. 3We a e indeb ed o Panu-Ma i Pöykkö’s s ill mos ly unpublished wo k on his ea u e o Le inas’s hough . 4 Simila ly, we may say ha me aphysical ealism objec i ies human dea h and mo ali y in o a me e empi ical and ac ual e en s and s a es in he wo ld, while a mo e Kan ian-o ien ed anscenden al app oach o human mo ali y seeks o unde s and dea h as a limi phenomenon and ho izon o li e wi hou which no wo ldly e en s would be humanly possible. C . (Pihls öm 2016). 5By di e si y we he e p ima ily mean he immense indi idual di e si y o human beings’ expe iences o su e ing and hei esponses o and ways o dealing wi h ha su e ing. Thus, we do no p ima ily in end his in he sense o social o cul u al di e si y, bu o cou se such di e se backg ounds also c ucially in luence he ways in which indi iduals expe ience and espond o hei expe iences o su e ing. Religions 2017,8, 242 6 o 18 he heodicis elies on me aphysical ealism in seeking o main ain a “ iew om nowhe e” ha pu s su e ing in i s p ope place in he o e all clean and well-ligh ed pic u e o he uni e se. F om a Kan ian poin o iew, we may say ha he basic p oblem wi h me aphysical ealism and i s applica ions in heodicism—and e e ywhe e else—is he endency o seek a heocen ic pe spec i e, which is necessa ily una ailable o us (o be e , no jus una ailable bu some hing he pu sui o which emains humanly incohe en ). I is a guably also an e hically p oblema ic goal e en o y o each i p ecisely because i is e hically p oblema ic o educe o he s’ expe iences o su e ing in o me e objec i e p ocesses and e en s in he wo ld aken o be independen o ou e hical acknowledgmen o su e ing in i s meaninglessness i educible o any alleged heodicis meaning ulness. A ela ed p oblem in me aphysical ealism is he a emp o make me aphysics p io o e hics, whe eas he kind o c i ique o me aphysical ealism and heodicism ad anced he e makes a me a-le el case o he p o ound en anglemen o hese wo a eas o philosophy. Howe e , he en anglemen o e hics wi h me aphysics canno i sel be ega ded as an objec i e ac in he wo ld (based on me aphysical ealism) bu mus be conside ed a ea u e o he human li ewo ld and p ac ices. I is in e ms o such en anglemen ha we mus see ou sel es, and he wo ld we li e in, when we ake se iously ou i educibly e hical pu sui o esponding o su e ing. An an i heodicis e hics o acknowledgmen hus canno be based on any objec i ying me aphysical ealism; ye , i mus main ain an o dina y no ion o objec i e u h needed o he equi emen o since i y undamen al o Kan ian an i heodicism. 6 Some hing like an o dina y concep o u h—no necessa ily equi ing any sophis ica ed philosophical elabo a ion—is needed simply in o de o someone who has unde gone expe iences o su e ing o be able o acknowledge he ac ha ha su e ing ac ually ook place; hence, such a no ion o u h is also necessa y o ou an i heodicis pu poses, because he an i heodicis mus be able o a gue ha he e is a sense in which heodicies wi h hei “God’s-Eye View” na a i e s uc u es o e look o neglec he u h abou wha eally happened o an indi idual su e e o how hey expe ienced hei su e ing. Failu e o acknowledgmen is he c ucial e hical ailu e in heodicis a emp s o jus i y “ he ways o God o man”; his is he an i heodicis ’s undamen al cha ge agains heodicism. 7 These hough s also lead us o app ecia e why he e should, and indeed can, be no a gumen om e il. This is p ecisely because a guing om e il, o esponding o such a gumen s heodicis ically, al eady p esupposes me aphysical ealism (and e iden ialism), objec i ying he e y expe iences o su e ing ha mus no be objec i ied. (No e, howe e , ha he p esupposing ela ion can be bila e al: acco ding o By ne ealism i sel p esupposes, as we saw, he p ojec o p o iding a heodicy, as some hing ha gene ically and essen ially belongs o eligions.) The e y use o he empi ical p emise s a ing he eali y o e il in he a gumen om e il—and heodicis esponses o ha p emise and i s a heis usage—insensi i ely objec i ies as well as ins umen alizes su e ing. We should, u he mo e, no e ha he nowadays ashionable posi ion known as skep ical heism also p oblema ically p esupposes me aphysical ealism. Acco ding o such a iew, God is claimed o ha e (o possibly ha e) easons o allowing su e ing ha we jus do no o canno know. The “di ine hiddenness” discussion is ye ano he deba e in con empo a y philosophy o eligion ha is in a 6 C . again Ki is ö and Pihls öm 2016, especially he analysis o he exchange be ween James Conan and Richa d Ro y on Geo ge O well’s Nine een Eigh y-Fou (chp. 5). 7 A mo e comp ehensi e examina ion o hese issues would also c i ically explo e he ela ion be ween ecogni ion and acknowledgmen . Recogni ion ocuses on cogni ion (knowing), and is hence, a guably, ul ima ely based on me aphysical ealism, while acknowledgmen ocuses no on knowing bu on acknowledging, in a non-me aphysically- ealis way. Howe e , his idea needs conside able u he de elopmen . (On he his o y o he issue o ecogni ion in eligion and heology, see Saa inen 2016.) Fu he mo e, he need o appeal o he “ u h” o indi idual expe iences o su e ing in an i heodicis a gumen a ion does no en ail he subjec i is o ela i is iew ha each indi idual accoun o such expe iences would be as aluable as any o he and ha c i ical discussion ac oss such pe spec i al in e p e a ions o su e ing would be impossible. Such discussion may be di icul , bu ce ainly an i heodicism by no means p ecludes he possibili y o acknowledging also he occasional ailu es o su e e s’ own in e p e a ions o hei si ua ions. On he o he hand, such in e p e i e disag eemen s mus always, o e hical easons, be app oached wi h u mos sensi i i y. Religions 2017,8, 242 7 o 18 ques ionable manne based on me aphysical ealism. All hese issues conce ning he ela ion be ween God, human beings, and he wo ld objec i y God as well as o he ness, p esupposing ha we can adop a heocen ic pe spec i e on hese ma e s, e en hough hey a e deeply human p oblems o which he e is only a ini e an h opocen ic pe spec i e a ailable o us, amids ou e hico- eligious human p ac ices. E en he skep ical heis assumes ha in p inciple a heocen ic pe spec i e could and should be a ailable, while i me ely de ac o con ingen ly is no . When he di ine hiddenness issue is aised as a pu ely in ellec ual puzzle allegedly ex e nal o eligious li e i sel , i di e s c ucially om he genuinely eligious and/o exis en ial anxie y associa ed wi h eal-li e expe iences o he hiddenness o God (which may o may no lead o one’s losing one’s eligion).8 I should be clea a his poin ha we belie e me aphysical ealism o be s ikingly inadequa e o explo ing expe iences and possibili ies like his. Expe iences o di ine hiddenness and meaninglessness equi e an en i ely di e en philosophical amewo k o be adequa ely add essed, and such a amewo k is una ailable in me aphysical ealism. The pu pose o his pape is no o a icula e such an an i heodicis amewo k in any de ail, bu we ha e ea lie (Ki is ö and Pihls öm 2016) a gued ha an i heodicisms con inuing he Kan ian adi ion—including abo e-men ioned app oaches such as Jamesian p agma ism, Wi gens einian philosophy o eligion, and Le inasian pos -Holocaus e hics o o he ness—a e wo h de eloping u he in his ega d. 3. Li e a y Examples o Unme i ed Su e ing: Mode n T ea men s o Job We will now mo e on o a conside a ion o ic ional li e a u e as in eg al o ou a gumen c i icizing bo h heodicism and me aphysical ealism as i s p esupposi ion. Any li e a y examina ion o an i heodicism mus begin om he Book o Job, which is he adi ional key ex o useless and unme i ed su e ing. Job objec s o heodicies ha would explain his su e ing in e ms o jus punishmen s o bad deeds, since in his own iew he had ne e commi ed any c imes me i ing such su e ing. Job’s iends, in u n, gi e a ional explana ions o his unwa an ed su e ing, hus ep esen ing alse heodicy, ha is, o icial and no ma i e iews o ai h ha y o jus i y God’s easons despi e Job’s conc e e indi idual expe ience o he wo ld. The iends o e adi ional eligious means o epen ance and sel -examina ion o heal Job’s dis ess, al hough hese in e p e a ions o his condi ion ac ually inc ease his su e ing by alsely a ibu ing guil o him. Especially a e he Second Wo ld Wa , c i ics ha e emphasized ha na a i e means can be e hically p oblema ic in ying o make sense o indi idual su e ing. Relying on his in e p e a i e app oach, Ca ol A. Newsom (2009) has analyzed how he iends alsely a emp o educe Job’s expe ience and also God’s easons o la ge na a i e s uc u es, which would explain he causes and consequences o Job’s unjus su e ing. Newsom poin s ou ha in ying o in eg a e Job’s expe ience o meaningless su e ing by hei adi ional na a i e pa e ns he iends pe o m an une hical ac , since hese pa e ns (e.g., s o ies o he bad a e o he wicked o he hope o he i uous) ail o do jus ice o Job’s p esen and pa icula si ua ion and deny his own conside a ions 8 As agains he mains eam analy ic di ine hiddenness discussion oday, we may (again joining Wi gens einian philosophe s like Phillips) sugges ha he expe ience o God’s hiding, o being una ailable o human beings in p aye , o ins ance, is in e nal o a eligious way o li e, challenging he li e and hough o a pe son engaging in eligion om wi hin—jus as we may say ha expe iences o meaningless e il and su e ing could be in e nal o eligious li e in an analogous way. Expe iences o di ine hiddenness could also challenge a non-belie e , o an agnos ic, o become mo e deeply engaged wi h an “awa eness o wha is missing” (see Habe mas 2010). Indeed, i is possible ha his is he o m o eligious expe ience a ailable o a secula mode n pe son, an expe ience possibly a ising om a conside a ion o he p oblem o e il and su e ing: i does no seem o be he case ha God is eally in cha ge o he wo ld o his o y. A he me a-le el, a secula ye eligiously sensi i e educa ed pe son migh ac ually long o he possibili y o (s ill) being pa o he kind o meaning ulness o signi icance (in e nally belonging o a genuinely eligious o m o li e) ha makes possible he eligiously ele an meaninglessness o a eligiously expe ienced di ine hiddenness. This me a-le el ques ion o meaning ulness and meaninglessness (which includes he e hical equi emen o adequa ely acknowledging o he s’ expe iences o meaninglessness, especially he meaninglessness o su e ing) is p esumably he closes ha e lec i e secula pe sons oday can ge o eligious expe ience—and an awa eness o he signi icance o he p oblem o e il and su e ing, an i heodicis ically o mula ed, migh be c ucial in eaching his me a-le el acknowledgmen . Religions 2017,8, 242 8 o 18 o his condi ion. The iends sugges ha by p aying Job would a ain an o de in his a lic ion, bu a meaning ul mo al o de is p ecisely wha Job is undamen ally lacking in his su e ing. He insis s ha his su e ing canno be educed o any meaning ul s o ylines wi h ini ial causes and hei e ec s, o elie ed by he apeu ic p aye s o by he iends’ consola ions (c . Job 16: 2–5). No can his su e ing, as Newsom obse es, be explained wi h e e ence o such con en ional posi i e pa e ns as hose o hope, ans o ma ion, o su i al, which would help in e p e Job’s si ua ion in he ligh o a meaning ul whole, whe e he sense o wholeness and pu pose ulness is happily a ained a he end o he s o y. Job’s iends hus c ea e con en ional cul u al pa e ns o p esen claims abou he mo al o de and cohe ence o he wo ld, bu hei ab ica ions a e condemned by Job (as well as by Kan in his la e heodicy essay: see again Kan 1983) 9 . Su e ing does no ake place in a wo ld ha is pu pose ul, o de ed and eleological, since he li ed expe ience denies such o de and symme y. As Newsom claims, Job ques ions he na a abili y o his iolen expe ience. I mode n philosophical e ms had been a ailable o Job, he migh ha e esis ed he me aphysical ealism— he commi men o a “God’s-Eye View” pic u e o a cohe en wo ld— ha can be ound a he backg ound o he iends’ heodicis sugges ions. The ejec ion o heodicies eappea s equen ly h oughou mode n li e a u e and al eady be o e he Holocaus . In mode n ew i ings o Job, indi idual eedom is se agains one o ano he o e whelming powe o necessi y c ushing he indi idual agen and his o he eedom. Wha is also common o hese igu es is ha none o hem quie ly accep s his condi ion, bu hey all ask o di ine jus ice and soon also igh agains he unjus o ces a ound hem. Like Job, who is an a che ype o bo h unnecessa y su e ing and esis ance, hey objec o heodicies ha would explain hei su e ing in e ms o jus punishmen s o bad deeds, since in hei own iew hey ha e ne e commi ed any c imes me i ing such su e ing. Among he amous li e a y cha ac e s who sha e his less pa ien basic eac ion o su e ing and u n o a ebellion agains God is F anz Ka ka’s Jose K., who in De P ozess (1925; see Ka ka 1955) unde goes an expe ience, a mys e ious condemna ion, o which signi icance is ha d o disco e . Jose K. is a es ed wi hou ha ing done any hing w ong (e was Böses), and he emains equally s ead as o his innocence as Job. Ins ead o accep ing he exis ence o a mo al balance in he wo ld, bo h Job and Ka ka’s Jose K. s a o challenge he idea o di ine jus ice and soon also ail agains God (o o he powe ul o ces su ounding hem). The p o agonis s’ expe ience sugges s ha he e is no mo al o de o ha mony in he wo ld unless humans hemsel es s a o s uggle o a mo ally be e wo ld. These li e a y wo ks challenge he human p ojec o making sense o su e ing by p o iding meaning o su e ing, and hus c ucially de elop he idea o an i heodicy ha ejec s such a emp s o jus i ica ion, sugges ing ha he p oblem o e il and disp opo ional su e ing canno be sol ed by heo e ical eason o by appealing o such simple na a i e o doc inal pa e ns as punishmen o ewa d. In Ka ka’s no el God does no add ess man; he absence o he dialogue be ween humani y and God is he mos agonizing ea u e in he no el. When Jose K. asks whe e he Judge is who could decide abou his case and whe e he Cou is ha would discuss i , no hing u ns up. The amous pa able “Be o e he Law” a he end o he no el is a key passage ha illus a es he human being’s u ile e o s o y o gain access o he Law and his epea ed ailu e o be admi ed. The pa able is a me onymic illus a ion o he ac ha Jose K. will ne e see he Judge o he Law he wishes o see and he is pe manen ly le ou side he doo s, in he bewilde men o he meaning o his li e. Thus, he s o y is a e e sal o he Book o Job in which God does inally appea and add ess Job ou o he s o m-wind. Ka ka e uses o ix meanings in any heological way and g ound hem in God. Jose K.’s s o y can be ead as a mys e y o human ailu e o a mys e y o di ine jus ice ha is beyond he ealm o human knowledge, bu he la e iew is less plausible i we ead he no el in e ms o 9 English ansla ion by Allen W. Wood and Geo ge Di Gio anni in Kan , Religion and Ra ional Theology. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 1996. Religions 2017,8, 242 9 o 18 an i heodicy (as we wan o sugges ). The absence o any ce ain answe s om sup ahuman o ces is c ucial he e, bu we should ake i as a chance gi en o humans, ins ead o eading he no el simply as a pessimis ic desc ip ion o he despai o a mode n secula pe son who will no longe be able o access he uni y wi h God. Closed doo s and he o e all me aphysical emp iness ha cha ac e izes he wo ld o he no el can be elie ing o humans, since hey encou age us o ake esponsibili y o ou ac ions, ins ead o ying o ind some o icial ins ance o a highe powe o judge ou doings. This is how we can in e p e he o -no ed Ka kaesque silence o he gods o he he meneu ic c isis; he openness and unce ain y and he missing o alizing iew a e e hically signi ican . Tha he e is no isible sign o di ine jus ice disce nible o human beings does no mean ha he human li e would be he e o e meaningless. On he con a y, he e y absence o such signs may be a p e equisi e o us humans o li e a li e ha is deeply e hical. Simila ly, we may say ha he kind o ejec ion o me aphysical ealism ha we ind necessa y o an i heodicism is i sel an e hically in igo a ing me aphysical mo e. Samuel Becke ’s Wai ing o Godo (1952, in Becke 2006) is ano he ob ious key ex he e, as i explo es he ques ions abou he un ul illed human desi e o some hing o u n up, o signs o highe powe s, some a ional basis o hings o a meaning ul o de ha would sugges ha he wo ld does no end a he bo de s o he sel . Ye he ac ual expe iences o he p o agonis s eco d me e oo lessness and pain ul su e ing; hey mou n hei si ua ion basically in he same way as Job, al hough hei su e ing akes a di e en o m o s asis and imelessness. In Becke ’s an i heodicis wo ks, he e y exis ence o a supe -pe spec i e is sugges ed o be undamen ally illuso y; such an illusion is main ained in o de o hold back he suspicion ha he wo ld in which humans su e is comple ely meaningless and ha human beings a e he e alone. The p o agonis s would like o see e idence o anscenden powe s in he smalles o e en s, and hey would lo e o submi hemsel es o some hing la ge han hemsel es, some ex a-men al c ea u e, bu he mys e ious Godo emains en i ely absen , and keeping his dis ance Godo is me ely p oduced in he con e sa ions be ween he main cha ac e s. Again, he comp ehensi e God’s-Eye View is no me ely una ailable o human beings, bu he e simply is no pe spec i e o ha kind; he e is no o e all explana ion o accoun o how hings a e. Ne e heless, i is only human o suppose he e is, and he whole exis ence o he powe ul igu e o Godo is indeb ed o human belie , imagina ion and language ha ill he silence. E en language, when ying o each o me aphysical heigh s, is d awn om he me aphysical o e e yday use in absu d li e a u e. The hea e o he absu d in gene al app oaches he issues o pe sonal guil and esponsibili y by showing how he possibili y o hese concep s becomes obscu e o impossible in a mode n wo ld. The use o hese concep s p esupposes an o de ed wo ld and meaning ul human exis ence, which a e called in o ques ion in absu d d ama. As F ied ich Dü enma has claimed in his essay “Thea e p obleme” (1955, in Dü enma 1975), agedy is possible only in an o de ed wo ld in which mo al causali ies ake place and human beings bea esponsibili y o hei ac ions; he agic wo ld is s uc u ed in a meaning ul way. In his iew, absu d comedy and g o esque a e mo e use ul concep s han agedy in in e p e ing he cu en wo ld, since hey cap u e he ambiguous and pa adoxical spi i o he age whe e causali ies and pe sonal esponsibili ies ha e disappea ed and he e is no connec ion o any anscendence. In absu d d ama, human li e is depic ed as comple ely dissolu e o any anscenden ealm, and he expe iences o meaninglessness and pu poselessness s em om his sense o human isola ion and dispossession. While in ou ea lie wo k (Ki is ö and Pihls öm 2016) we s udied he Book o Job, Ka ka, Becke , and O well o ou an i heodicis pu poses (sugges ing ha hey in e es ingly co espond o, o aes he ically mani es , a ious pos -Kan ian philosophical an i heodicies), he no els we ha e now selec ed as he objec s o ou close an i heodicis eading a e wo wo ks by Joseph Ro h. Ro h’s Hiob: Roman eines ein achen Mannes (1930, Ro h 2012) is a he explici ly a ew i ing o he Book o Job. The no el ells us a s o y o a simple man, whose li e becomes special h ough his ex ao dina y su e ing. The p o agonis o he no el, Mendel Singe , eli es he des iny o Job as his la e inca na ion and as i in a so o ex ual possession ha he canno lea e behind. We could alk abou Job’s exis en ial Religions 2017,8, 242 16 o 18 Fo example, Pe e Van Inwagen (2006, p. 12) ells us ha his examina ion o he p oblem o e il is “pu ely in ellec ual” and ha his “de ense” is no in ended o e en hypo he ically com o anyone (Van Inwagen 2006, p. 108); simila ca ea s a e added by a numbe o o he heodicis s. Hence, i could be claimed ha no ailu e o ecogni ion is necessa ily commi ed by he heodicis (o he one who seeks o o e a “de ense”) a he p ac ical le el o engaging wi h su e ing human beings needing consola ion (o , in a heological con ex , pas o al ca e). I he dis inc ion be ween heo y and p ac ice is d awn ca e ully enough, heodicies and de enses may emain pu ely heo e ical and in ellec ual, while com o and consola ion a e p ac ical ma e s o be deal wi h sepa a ely. Howe e , i can now be a gued— o example, om a p agma is poin o iew (c . Pihls öm 2013, 2014), hough his line o a gumen is ce ainly no es ic ed o p agma ism— ha he e y a emp o de end heodicism by d awing such a sha p heo y-p ac ice dicho omy i sel (a a me a-le el) cons i u es a mo al ailu e o ecogni ion. The su e ing o he ough o be mo ally ecognized p ecisely by no d awing such a dicho omy— ha is, by no engaging in he heo e ical a gumen a i e exchange o pu ely in ellec ual ideas p o and con a heodicies a all. This, we may say, is whe e he me aphilosophical ele ance o mo al an i heodicism o he pu sui o philosophy o eligion p ima ily lies. Again, an i heodicis a gumen s and posi ions as di e se as James’s p agma ism, Phillips’s Wi gens einianism, and Le inas’s insis ence on he p imacy o he o he ’s ace can be ega ded as a ia ions on his gene al heme, and so can he an i heodicis eadings o he li e a u e p esen ed in he p e ious sec ion. James (1907, James 1975, chp. 1) seems o base his en i e p agma ic me hod on an an i heodicis e usal o a ach any absolu e o abs ac me aphysical signi icance (ei he Hegelian o Leibnizian) o indi idual expe iences o conc e e su e ing, while Phillips (2004) wa ns agains he mo ally co up ing language o an h opomo phic accoun s o God ha seem o u n God in o a mons ous agen calcula ing he ad an ages and disad an ages o allowing his c ea ion o su e . In a di e en bu a guably analogously p agma ic s ain, Le inas (2006) main ains ha he jus i ica ion o o he s’ su e ing is he ounda ion o all immo ali y. In hei dis inc i e ways, hese an i heodicis hinke s sugges ha he e is some hing deeply w ong—and non- ecognizing— in he heo y-p ac ice dicho omy i sel in his a ea. I can be u he a gued ha an i heodicism (exempli ied by hese e y di e en hinke s), in insis ing on no explaining away he meaninglessness o su e ing, is needed p ecisely as a necessa y condi ion o he possibili y o adequa ely ecognizing he o he pe son as a (po en ial o ac ual) su e e . I can be pa o ha adequa e ecogni ion o acknowledge ha he e is su e ing ha simply canno be ende ed meaning ul in any mo ally accep able sense. The e o e, he e is a sense in which heodicis a i udes o o he s should no hemsel es be (philosophically, e hically) ecognized as e hically app op ia e a i udes, o pe haps no e en ole a ed, and his ejec ion o heodicism can be a icula ed in e ms o p agma ism ha is gene ally c i ical o any p incipled heo y–p ac ice dicho omies. I heo y and p ac ice a e ine i ably en angled, hen he ailu e o ecognize his en anglemen again cons i u es a ailu e o adequa ely engage in he p ac ical ask o ecognizing o he ness. 5. Concluding Re lec ions I should hus be e-emphasized ha a philosophical opposi ion o me aphysical ealism, o educ i e objec i ica ion, o wha Kan called anscenden al ealism, and o a ious o ms o educ ionism and o alizing, on he one hand, and an i heodicism acknowledging indi idual su e ing in i s pe spec i al a ie y (de ended in he li e a y wo ks examined abo e, and in con as o heodicis pos ula ions o a o alizing o e all pe spec i e), on he o he hand, a e eally wo sides o he same coin. Howe e , we should ecognize a inal e lexi e p oblem he e. A e we saying ha his an i heodicism is agene ally co ec iew o emb ace? A e we be aying ou own de ense o i educible pe spec i alness, and he espec o di e si y ha goes along wi h i by ailing o ecognize he philosophical alue o , say, monism and educ ionism—o , indeed, o heodicism? We ha e no inal answe o p o ide he e. We a e jus emp ed o poin ou ha his c i icism amoun s o some hing compa able o he Religions 2017,8, 242 17 o 18 claim ha one should, i one is ole an , also ole a e in ole ance; he only possible esponse o such a c i icism in he end is “no, one should no .” Ye , we should cons an ly examine ou own emp a ions o educ ionism, heodicism, and non- ecogni ion. The ac ha we ha e o be e lec i ely sel -c i ical in ou pu sui o an i heodicism yields one inal commen on wha we migh call he humanism o an i heodicism. 17 We should de end he indi idual human being’s igh and du y o ake esponsibili y o c ea ing mo al meaning in o he /his li e and he wo ld s/he li es in, in he absence o any anscenden , me aphysico- heological o heodicis g and na a i es o he meaning ulness o signi icance o su e ing. This is some hing ha ou eading o an i heodicis li e a u e b ings ou e y clea ly. The human being s ands in he cen e o his e hical p ojec o cons uc ing meaning; his is a human exis en ial ask ha canno be handed o e o any ( eal o imagined) God. “C ea ing mo al meaning” does no amoun o disco e ing any eady-made meanings o mo al u hs (in a me aphysically ealis ic sense) bu o li ing an open, possibly e y di icul li e ully awa e o he signi icance o wha Wi gens ein in he T ac a us (1921) called he “p oblem o li e.” Such c ea ion o meaning may c ucially need li e a y and o he a is ic pe spec i es on he wo ld we li e in. While ic ional li e a u e can ha dly di ec ly p o ide a knock-down a gumen agains me aphysical ealism o heodicism, i may be an essen ial, unde achable elemen o a su icien ly ich philosophical conside a ion o hese issues—o so, a leas , we ha e ied o sugges in his pape . This “humanism o an i heodicism” is also, a guably, a humanism o a “de-sel ing,” disappea ing subjec : he e hically engaged pe son does no se he -/himsel a he cen e bu disappea s in o he wo ld like he me aphysical subjec o Wi gens ein’s amous (albei ex emely con o e sial) solipsism in he T ac a us (Wi gens ein 1974, § 5.64; c . Pihls öm 2016, chp. 3). Such humanism is e y di e en om he way in which he human being (one’s own sel ) is placed a he cen e o hings in con empo a y popula “sel ie” and sel -help cul u e. The sel -c i ically e lec i e an i heodicism we ha e de ended in his pape con ains he equi emen o cons an igilance in no se ing onesel i s and he eby ailing o ecognize o he s’ su e ing. This is why i is impo an o igh agains one’s own heodicis emp a ions—and he ela ed emp a ion o emb ace he only appa en ly consoling absolu e pic u e o me aphysical ealism. Ou c i icism o heodicism and non-acknowledgmen should i s and o emos be sel -c i icism. Reading (and w i ing) c ea i e li e a u e d awing a en ion o o he s’ su e ing may be a undamen al elemen o such a campaign. Acknowledgmen s: We a e pa icula ly g a e ul o Simo Knuu ila, Heikki J. Koskinen, Panu-Ma i Pöykkö, and Ris o Saa inen o help ul con e sa ions on he opic o his pape . Thanks a e also due o Jill He nandez o he in i a ion o submi his pape o his special issue, as well as o he anonymous e iewe o help ul commen s. We also g a e ully ecognize he signi icance o he Academy o Finland Cen e o Excellence, “Reason and Religious Recogni ion” (hos ed by he Facul y o Theology, Uni e si y o Helsinki) o ou wo k. Au ho Con ibu ions: The au ho s a e join ly esponsible o he en i e a icle, hough he li e a y sec ions we e p ima ily w i en by Sa i Ki is ö and he philosophical sec ions by Sami Pihls öm. Con lic s o In e es : The au ho s decla e no con lic o in e es . Re e ences Ba ni zky, Leo a. 2015. Beyond Theodicy? Joban Themes in Philip Ro h’s Nemesis. In The Book o Job: Aes he ics, E hics, He meneu ics. Edi ed by Ilana Pa des and Leo a Ba ni zky. Be lin: De G uy e , pp. 213–24. Becke , Samuel. 2006. The Comple e D ama ic Wo ks. London: Fabe and Fabe . Be ns ein, Richa d. 2002. Radical E il: A Philosophical In e oga ion. Camb idge: Poli y P ess. Be enson, Toby. 2016. An i-Theodicy. Philosophy Compass 11: 56–65. [C ossRe ] By ne, Pe e . 2003. God and Realism. Alde sho : Ashga e. 17 This undamen al humanism can, again, be ega ded as a common ea u e sha ed by he di e en an i heodicisms b ie ly men ioned abo e. I should come as no su p ise ha such humanism is a end in an i heodicisms ha can be aken o be “Kan ian” (c . again Ki is ö and Pihls öm 2016), gi en Kan ’s insis ence on he i educible alue o he human pe son. Religions 2017,8, 242 18 o 18 Ca son, Thomas L. 2007. Axiology, Realism, and he P oblem o E il. Philosophy and Phenomenological Resea ch 75: 349–68. [C ossRe ] Conan , James. 2000. F eedom, C uel y, and T u h: Ro y e sus O well. In Ro y and His C i ics. Edi ed by Robe B. B andom. Ox o d and Camb idge: Blackwell, pp. 268–342. Dü enma , F ied ich. 1975. De Besuch de al en Dame. S u ga : Reclam. Fisch, Ha old. 1998. New S o ies o Old: Biblical Pa e ns in he No el. Basings oke: Palg a e Macmillan. Habe mas, Jü gen. 2010. An Awa eness o Wha Is Missing. Camb idge: Poli y P ess. Hasan-Rokem, Gali . 2015. Joban T ans o ma ions o he Wande ing Jew in Joseph Ro h’s Hiob and De Le ia han. In The Book o Job: Aes he ics, E hics, He meneu ics. Edi ed by Ilana Pa des and Leo a Ba ni zky. Be lin: De G uy e , pp. 147–71. James, William. 1975. P agma ism: A New Name o Some Old Ways o Thinking. Edi ed by F ede ick H. Bu kha d , F edson Bowe s and Ignas K. Sk upskelis. Camb idge and London: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess. Fi s published 1907. Ka ka, F anz. 1955. The T ial. T ansla ed by Willa and Edwin Mui . London: Penguin. Fi s published 1925. Kan , Immanuel. 1983. Übe das Misslingen alle philosophischen Ve suche eine Theodicee. In We ke in zehn Bänden. Edi ed by Wilhelm Weischedel. Da ms ad : Wissenscha liche Buchgesellscha , ol. 9. Fi s published 1791. Ki is ö, Sa i, and Sami Pihls öm. 2016. Kan ian An i heodicy: Philosophical and Li e a y Va ie ies. Basings oke: Palg a e Macmillan. Küng, Hans. 1991. Religion in he Con o e sy o e he End o Religion. In Li e a u e & Religion. Edi ed by Wal e Jens and Hans Küng. New Yo k: Pa agon House. Landweh , Ma ga e e Johanna. 2003. Mode nis Aes he ics in Joseph Ro h’s Rade zkyma sch: The C isis o Meaning and he Role o he Reade . Ge man Qua e ly 76: 398–410. [C ossRe ] Le inas, Emmanuel. 2006. En e-Nous: Thinking-o - he-O he . T ansla ed by Michael B. Smi h. London: Con inuum. Neiman, Susan. 2002. E il in Mode n Though : An Al e na i e His o y o Philosophy. P ince on: P ince on Uni e si y P ess. Newsom, Ca ol A. 2009. The Book o Job: A Con es o Mo al Imagina ions. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. Phillips, Dewi Zephaniah. 2004. The P oblem o E il and he P oblem o God. London: SCM Publica ions. Pihls öm, Sami. 2013. P agma ic Plu alism and he P oblem o God. New Yo k: Fo dham Uni e si y P ess. Pihls öm, Sami. 2014. Taking E il Se iously. Basings oke: Palg a e Pi o . Pihls öm, Sami. 2016. Dea h and Fini ude: Towa d a P agma ic T anscenden al An h opology o Human Limi s and Mo ali y. Lanham: Lexing on Books. Ro y, Richa d. 1989. The Las In ellec ual in Eu ope: O well on C uel y. In Con ingency, I ony, and Solida i y. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Ro y, Richa d. 2000. Response o James Conan . In Ro y and His C i ics. Edi ed by Robe B. B andom. Malden and Ox o d: Blackwell, pp. 342–50. Ro h, Joseph. 2010. Rebellion. T ansla ed by Michael Ho man. New Yo k: Picado . Fi s published 1924. Ro h, Joseph. 2012. Hiob. Roman.. Köln: Kiepenheue & Wi sch. Fi s published 1930. Ro h, Philip. 2010. Nemesis. London: Vin age. Rowe, William, ed. 2001. God and he P oblem o E il. Malden and Ox o d: Blackwell. Saa inen, Ris o. 2016. Recogni ion and Religion: A His o ical and Sys ema ic S udy. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. Van Inwagen, Pe e . 2006. The P oblem o E il. Ox o d: Cla endon P ess. Wi gens ein, Ludwig. 1974. T ac a us Logico-Philosophicus. T ansla ed by B ian F. McGuinness and Da id F. Pea s. London: Rou ledge and Kegan Paul. Fi s published 1921. © 2017 by he au ho s. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swi ze land. This a icle is an open access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms and condi ions o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion (CC BY) license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/).