On the Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy

Introduction

In today’s interview on the Philosophy for All channel, I am privileged to be joined by Dr Sami Pihlström to discuss anti-theodicy. Anti-theodicy is a sub-category in the philosophy of religion, rejecting the potential for any relation between God and evil to be established. Dr Pihlström is one of the leading proponents of anti-theodicy and is a Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the University of Helsinki.

In this post, I, with the help of AI, briefly summarise some of the key themes that we have discussed in the interview, and as always, for the full breakdown, make sure you go check out the interview in full:

What is Anti-Theodicy?

• Anti-theodicy is not just a rejection of theodicies (explanations for evil in a world governed by God), but an alternative way of engaging with the problem of evil and suffering.
• It challenges the expectation that suffering must be justified or explained within a theological framework.
• Unlike traditional atheist critiques, which assume theodicies should be provided and then refute them, anti-theodicy rejects the entire premise of justifying suffering.

Historical Development and Kant’s Contribution

• While anti-theodicy as a term emerged in the 1990s (Zachary Reiterman), its roots go back to Job, Voltaire, and Kant.
• Kant’s 1791 essay On the Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy criticizes speculative theodicies and argues that human reason cannot justify suffering through metaphysical means.
• He contrasts theoretical theodicies with what he calls “authentic theodicy,” which emphasizes moral integrity (as seen in Job’s refusal to accept justifications for his suffering).
• Kant’s ideas shift the focus from metaphysical explanations of evil to ethical responses, influencing modern anti-theodicy.

Anti-Theodicy and the Problem of Evil

• Anti-theodicy critiques both theodicies and the structure of traditional atheistic arguments, which still assume suffering must be accounted for in a grand explanatory system.
• It opposes the idea that suffering can or should be made meaningful within a divine or historical narrative.
• This perspective aligns with philosophers like William James, D.Z. Phillips, and Emmanuel Levinas, who stress that justifications for suffering often ignore the experiences of the victims.

Literature and Anti-Theodicy

• Literature plays a significant role in expressing anti-theodical ideas, as seen in Dostoevsky (The Brothers Karamazov), Kafka (The Trial), and Beckett (Waiting for Godot).
• Kafka’s The Trial is a notable example of an individual confronting an incomprehensible system, mirroring Job’s challenge to divine justice.
• Dostoevsky’s Ivan Karamazov famously rejects the idea that suffering, especially that of children, can ever be justified.
• Anti-theodicy’s engagement with literature highlights the existential and ethical dimensions of suffering, rather than reducing it to a logical problem.

Transcendental Guilt and Forgiveness

• Pihlström discusses the concept of transcendental guilt, inspired by Kant and Karl Jaspers, which suggests that guilt is not just about individual moral failings but is embedded in the human condition.
• Transcendental forgiveness refers to the broader moral and existential challenge of confronting evil without expecting absolute reconciliation.
• This view aligns with thinkers like Levinas, who emphasize ethical responsibility over abstract theorizing.

Philosophical Implications on Narratives

• Anti-theodicy is not limited to theology; it can be also interpreted as a critique of ideologies that justify suffering within historical narratives (e.g., communism, nationalism).
• The discussion extends to the secular realm, where suffering is often framed within progress-driven narratives that may justify harm for a perceived greater good.
• While one cannot view anti-theodicy as a challenge to all narratives, such a claim may be too strong, it at least provides prima facie reason to doubt narratives’ success.

Where Does Anti-Theodicy Leave Us?

• Unlike theodicy, which seeks solutions, anti-theodicy emphasizes the ethical weight of suffering and the impossibility of fully justifying it.
• It does not resolve the problem of evil but reorients how we engage with it—shifting from a theoretical problem to a moral and existential challenge.
• Importantly, anti-theodicy is not necessarily tied to theism or atheism; it critiques approaches that attempt to rationalize suffering, regardless of one’s stance on God.

Conclusion

Compared to traditional theodicy, it is clear that anti-theodicy has historically played a lesser role in academia. However, given its methodology and insights, I hope that this blog post has intrigued you to carry out more reading into this work or to watch the full interview with Dr. Sami Pihlström. I really enjoyed this interview and I hope to see you all soon!