Kierkegaard's Conception of God

Kierkegaard’sConceptionofGod

PaulK.Moser*,MarkL.McCreary LoyolaUniversityChicago

Abstract

PhilosophershaveoftenmisunderstoodKierkegaard’sviewsonthenatureandpurposesofGod duetoafascinationwithhisearlier,pseudonymousworks.WeexaminemanyofKierkegaard’s laterworkswiththeaimofsettingforthanaccurateviewonthismatter.TheportraitofGodthat emergesisapersonalandfiercelylovingGodwithwhomhumanscanandshouldenterintorelationship.Farfromadvocatingafideisticfaithoracognitivelyunrestrainedleapinthedark,we arguethatKierkegaardconnectsthisGod-relationshipto(aparticularkindof)evidenceandeven knowledge.However,suchevidenceandknowledge–andhenceGodhimself–mayremain hiddenfrommanyindividualsduetomisconceptionsofGodandmisusesofthehumanwill.

Inoneofhislastphilosophicalworks,Kierkegaard(hereafterK)exclaims:‘Oh,towhat degreehumanbeingswouldbecome–humanandlovablebeings–iftheywould becomesingleindividualsbeforeGod’.ThisexclamationexpressesamaingoalofK’sliteraryefforts,earlyandlate:toinvitereadersto‘becomesingleindividualsbeforeGod’ (1851a,11).Accordingly,heremarks:‘Tome,notpersonallybutasathinker,thismatter ofthesingleindividualisthemostdecisive’(1859,114).Healsoputsthisgoalas:‘To cometooneselfinself-knowledge andbeforeGod’(1876,106).AkeylimitationonK’s invitationtoself-knowledgebeforeGodisthat‘IcannotmakemyGod-relationship public’inawaythatdisregardsits‘purelypersonalinwardness’(1859,25).Weshall examineK’sunderstandingofGodandaGod-relationship,inthelightofhismature workbeginningwithhis‘turning-point’in ConcludingUnscientificPostscript (1846).

1.Method

AlthoughKwrotesomebooksunderpseudonymsandsomeunderhisownname,each oftheseworksreveals,directlyorindirectly,aconceptionofGod.Forinstance,aparticularconceptionofGodisrevealedbyJohannesdeSilentio,thepseudonymousauthorof FearandTrembling,andcommentatorshavewrittenmuchaboutthisconception.Evenso, becausetheirwritingfocusesonapseudonymouswork,itdoesnotimmediatelyaddress theissueof Kierkegaard’s conceptionofGod.Toavoidthisproblem,weshallsurvey viewsofGodfromsomeofK’slaterworksregardingwhichwecanbeconfidentofK’s ownviews.K,however,isnotinterestedinaspeculative,orabstractphilosophical, understandingofGod;instead,heaimstoportrayGodastheOnewithwhomhumans canandshouldbeinlife-giving‘spiritualrelationship’.

WefollowK’sownsuggesteddistinctionbetweenthefirstandthesecondauthorship. Thefirstconsistsoftheworkspriorto ConcludingUnscientificPostscript,mostofwhichare writtenunderpseudonyms.Thesecondconsistsofworkswrittenafterthe Postscript,most ofwhicharewrittenunderK’sownname.The Postscript itselfoccupiesamiddleground designatedbyKas‘theturningpointinthewholeauthorship’,apointthatbelongs

neithertotheearlynortothelaterworks(1859,55;cf.9,29,31,63,94).Although writtenunderthepseudonym‘JohannesClimacus’,thisworkhasKnamedasitseditor. Attheendofthe Postscript,Kadds‘AFirstandLastExplanation’inwhichhesignshis ownnameandtakescreditforcreatingtheearlierpseudonyms.However,hewritesthat ‘inthepseudonymousbooksthereisnotasinglewordbyme’,thatis,representativeof hisownposition(1846,626;cf.1859,24).Accordingto ThePointofViewforMyWork asanAuthor,themainfocusofK’sauthorshipistodescribewhatitmeanstobecomea Christian.Theearlyworksleaduptothisfocusindirectly,and,beginningwiththe Postscript, thelaterworkstreatitdirectlyandextensively.

DespiteK’sstatedliteraryintentions,somecommentatorsholdthatweshouldnottake himathiswordregardingthoseintentions.TheyincludeFenger(1980),Garff(1997, 1998,1999),andMackey(1986).Incontrast,commentatorswhorecommendtakingK’s statedliteraryintentionsatfacevalueincludeWalsh(1999)andEvans(2006,35–41).We ourselvesfindK’smostdirectandmostmaturethoughtsonGodinthesecondauthorship,inkeepingbothwithhisstatedintentionsandwiththefactthatnoneoftheearly pseudonymsclaimstohaveknowledgeofGod.Accordingly,oursurveydevotesmostof itsattentiontosomeofK’slaterworks.(Forsomeexcellentstudiesthatfocusalmost exclusivelyonK’ssecondauthorship,seeCome1997;Walsh2005;Gouwens1996; Dewey1968.)

2.GodasPersonal

K’sGod,unliketheGodofPlatoandAristotle,isinherentlypersonalandhencepurposive.Here,weusetheslipperyterm‘personal’broadly,insuchawaythatwhateveris personalhasintentionsorpurposesandwhateverhasintentionsorpurposesispersonal. K’sconceptionofGodisverydifferentfromAristotle’sconceptionofanUnmoved Mover,andisanchoredinChristiantheologicalconcepts(seeLaw1995).Accordingly, Gouwens(1996)placesK‘atthecenteroftheChristiantraditionratherthanatitsfringe’ (22).Kaffirmsthat‘Godislove’andthatGodisthe‘sourceofalllove’(1847b,190,3). HereferstoGodas‘mylover’,andpredictsthathisloverwillsomedaycomeand,seeing throughallmisleadingappearances,perceivethetruthbehindK’sauthorship(1859,69–70).HeremarksontheroleGodplayedintheproductionofhiswritings,andemphasizesthathehasneededGod’shelpandassistancetowriteeachday.Attimeshewas consciousofwritingasanactofobediencetowardGod,butatothertimes,accordingto K,Goddirectedthingsbehindthescenes,whenKwasnotyetconsciousofthefull meaningofhiswrittenwords.Regardingthedirectionandfinalshapeofhisauthorship, Kwritesthat‘Governance[=God]hadcurbedmeineveryrespect’(1859,86).Kmakes itclear,however,thatthiswasnotmanipulative;instead,hesawitasasignofdivine ‘compassionatelove’thatGodchosetousehiminthisway(1859,87).

KreportsthathehasbeenassuredthatGodhasbeenpleasedwithhisworkasan author.Hesaysthat‘IknowwithGod’thathiswork‘findsfavor’withGod,andthat‘It istrulypleasingtoGodthatthetruthisservedinthisway’(1859,24,60).Regarding howthiswasmadeknown,KwritesthatGod’s‘spiritwitnessedpowerfullywithmy spiritthatithadhiscompleteandhighestapproval’(1859,60).Accordingly,Kconceived ofGodassomeonewhomhumanbeingscanknowandinteractwith,spirittoSpirit.K portraysGodasapersonalbeingwhocan(anddoes)intentionallyandlovinglyguide humanbeings.

K’sconceptionofGodaspersonalTrinityemergesin ForSelf-Examination,abook dividedintothreepartsthatbeginwithprayersoffered,respectively,totheFather,to

Kierkegaard’sConceptionofGod129

Christ,andtotheHolySpirit.Wesee,accordingly,thatKconceivesofGodasapersonalagenttowhomhumanscanpray.Thebook’sthreepartsreinforceapersonalTrinitarianapproachtoGod,asfollows.Thefirstpart,‘WhatisRequiredinOrdertoLook atOneselfwithTrueBlessingintheMirroroftheWord’,presentswhattheChristian requirementsare,asgiveninlovebyGodtheFather.Thesecondpart,‘Christisthe Way’,showshowonecanmeettheserequirementsthroughimitationofChrist.The thirdpart,‘ItistheSpiritWhoGivesLife’,explainsthatthisWaycanbefollowedonly throughthehelpoftheHolySpirit,becauseitisGod’sownSpiritwhogiveshumans ‘newlife’byhelpingthem‘dieto’theselfishnessoftheworld.

K’semphasisontheimportanceoftheHolySpiritcontinuesin JudgeforYourself!, whichbeginswithaprayeraskingGodtosendGod’sSpirit‘intoourhearts’(1876,95). Wemustreceivethislife-givingSpirit,accordingtoK,to‘dieto’selfishnessandlivein faithtowardGod(1876,98).AlthoughitispainfulattimestoyieldtotheSpiritwho seekstokillhabitsandpracticesopposedtoGod’sunselfishlove,trueliferequiresobediencetothisdivineteacher.

KemphasizestheimportanceofimitatingJesus,andspeaksofcognitivebenefitsthat ariseasaresultofsuchimitation.Hewritesthat‘thedemonstrationofChristianityreally liesin imitation’(1851b,68),andthat‘theproofdoesnotprecedebutfollows,isinand withtheimitationthatfollowsChrist’(1876,191).Healsomaintainsthatimitationisthe keyinabolishingdoubtsandgainingcertitude(1876,190–1,197),includingcertitude regardingvariousfactsaboutJesusandhisresurrection(1851b,70).Accordingly,Kholds thatfaith’slifeofimitationleadstoasubjectivedemonstrationandpersonalassurance regardingsometruthsconcerningGodandGod’sreality.(SeeDewey1968,foraportrayalofKierkegaardianimitationanditsimportanceforK’sauthorship.)

WhilecallingforarigorousChristianlife,KportraysGodasgracious.Specifically,he holdsthateverycommandissuedbyGod,nomatterhowrigorous,ismotivatedbyGod’s loveandconcernforeachhumanbeing(1876,156).BothFerreira(2001)andHall (2002)highlightmanyofthedifficulties(andjoys)oflivingoutK’sunderstandingof love.AlthoughKemphasizesChristasPrototype,healsostressesthatChristisfirstand foremostRedeemer,andthatChristtheRedeemeristheconditionforthepossibilityof imitatingChristthePrototype(1876,147,159).Kacknowledgesthatthereisnothinga humanbeingcandotocomeclosertoGod(1876,152).Instead,wemustrelyonGod’s loveandgracethatcometousinChrist,theRedeemerandPrototype.

EvenK’slatepolemicalpublications,inhis‘attackonChristendom’of1854–1855, presentGodaspersonalandloving,particularlyasfiercelyloving(1855a,78;1855b,173, 251,294;1855c,271,280).Thatis,Godloveshumansandwantsthebestforthem,but whatisbestforhumansisoftenopposedtohumanselfishnessorwhat‘theworld’ encourages.Asaresult,God’sloveisnotpurecomfort,andGodmustnotbeviewedas merelya‘niceguy’.Instead,Godlovinglycallshumanstoundergothesufferingof‘dying to’theselfishnessoftheworld(1855b,177–178,251–252,294–295).

K’s1855 TheChangelessnessofGod:ADiscourse (1855c,263–281)underscoresthatGod islove,andthatGod’schangelessnessrefersprimarilytothefactthatGodwillnotcease tobeloving.EvenwhenhumansdonotsubmittoGod’slovingwill,Goddoesnotfor thatreasonceasetolovethem.AccordingtoK,themostimportantthinginlifeistodiscoverGod’slovewithinapersonalGod-relationship.Itiswonderfulifthiscanbediscoveredthroughgentleness,butifseverityorsufferingisrequired,thensobeit(1855c, 276).Theultimatetragedy,byK’slights,isthatahumanmightlivethisearthlylife, whetherinsufferingorincomfort,andneverexperienceGod’schangelesslove.

3.God-Relationship

ThetrueGod,accordingtoK,isnotrelatedtohumansviahumanspeculation.Writing asClimacusin ConcludingUnscientificPostscript,Kproposesthat‘theGod-relationshipof theindividualhumanbeingisthemainpoint’,thatis,what‘makesahumanbeinga humanbeing’(1846,77,244).Ahumanthereby‘find[s]repose...inaspiritualrelationshipwithGod’,andthisdependsonan‘inwardness’wherebyoneis‘awakenedtoa God-relationship,andthenitispossibletoseeGodeverywhere’(1846,45,247).K warnsagainsthaving‘one’sGodrelationshiptransformedintoaspeculativeenterpriseon thebasisofprobabilityandpartnershipandfellowshareholders’(1846,66).Heholdsthat ‘allreligious,tosaynothingofChristian,venturingis...bywayofrelinquishingprobability’(1876,100)forthesakeoffaithaspassionateinwardnessandchoice(1850,86–87, 140–141;cf.1846,113,116,129,221).ThispositionenduresthroughoutK’swritings, anditrestsonK’sviewthat‘Godandmanaretwoqualitiesseparatedbyaninfinite qualitativedifference’thatcanbemediatedonlybyGodhimself(1849a,126).

OnemightproposethatKisdevelopingKant’scriticalprogramofdenyingknowledge (andevidence)toleaveroomforfaith,butthestoryisnotsosimpleorfamiliar.Weshall propose,instead,thatKdeniesonekindofknowledge(andevidence)ofGodtoleave roomforanother,bettersuitedkindofknowledge(andevidence).Inparticular,aswe shallsee,hedeniesthe‘profane’kindtoleaveroomforthe‘sacred’kind.Weseenoreason,however,toconcludethatKiscommittedtotraditionalnegativetheologyofany kind(onwhichseeLaw1993).

RegardingChristianbeliefthatdivineincarnationoccurredinJesus,Kholdsthat‘... thecontradictionbetweenbeingGodandbeinganindividualhumanbeingisthegreatest possible,theinfinitelyqualitativecontradiction’(1850,131;cf.1876,121,134).Headds, accordingly,that‘Christianityisamadnessbecauseitisincommensuratewithanyfinite wherefore....Bequiet:itistheabsolute.Andthatishowit must bepresented’(1850, 62).Thisappearstobesheerdogmatism,withoutanycompellingrationale,ifnotunbridledfideism,too.This,however,isonlyanappearance.

ContrarytoGarelick(1965),Blanshard(1969),Penelhum(1983),andothers,Kisno fideistwhojettisonsreasonordoesawaywithcognitivelysignificantrestraintsincommitmentsregardingGod(foramoredetailedtreatmentofthisissueseeEvans1998).AsK says,‘Christianityhasitsowncharacteristicwayofrestraining’regardingbeliefandaction (1876,100).ThefirsthintofK’sdistinctiveepistemologyemergesinanimportantbut under-appreciatedfootnotein PracticeinChristianity (25),whereKmentions‘‘‘history’’ understoodasprofanehistory,worldhistory,historydirectlyunderstoodincontradistinctiontosacredhistory.’Theprofane–sacreddistinctionarguablyapplies,inK’sthinking,notonlytohistorybutalsoto knowledge, reason, understanding,andrelated phenomena.Thecategoryofthe‘profane’involvesaworlddevoidofthevoiceofthe personalGod.Profanehistory,knowledge,reason,andunderstandinghavenoplacefor thevoiceofsuchaGod.Evenreligiouspeoplecanbeinthegripsofprofanecategories. AsKremarks:‘OnemakesGod’sWordintosomethingimpersonal,objective,adoctrine –insteadofitsbeingthevoiceofGodthatyoushallhear’(1851b,39).Headds:‘...what amonstrousmistakeitis,almostthegreatestpossible,todidacticizeChristianity’(1850, 206).

Kmakesvariousclaimsthatleadmanycommentatorstoportrayhimasabandoning religiousknowledgeforthesakeofmere,cognitivelyunrestrainedfaith.Thisisamistakenportrayal,aswecanseeinK’ssecondauthorship.SomeofthemostdecisiveevidenceisinPart1of JudgeforYourself! (98–143),whereKexplainsthecrucialroleof

‘self-knowledge’inhumancommitmenttoGod.Theself-knowledgeinquestionisirreducibletoanykindofimmediateexperience,andcontrastswithanyknowledgeinwhich ‘youforgetyourself,areabsentfromyourself’(1876,105).Hecharacterizesitasrequiring one‘tocometooneself...beforeGodasnothingbeforehim,yetinfinitely,unconditionallyengaged’byGod(1876,104).

Kaimstoidentifyakindofsacredself-knowledge(incontrastwithprofaneknowledge)whereinoneseesone’scompleteinadequacybeforeGod,ishumbledbeforeGod, andreceivesGod’scalltobemadenewandtoliveanewinperfectlovebeforeGod. Suchself-knowledgeisqualitativelyandexistentiallyverydifferentfromanykindofprofaneknowledgeorevidence,anditisnothumanlycontrollable,givenGod’sindispensablerole.Indeed,itcanseemfoolishorabsurdfromtheperspectiveofprofane knowledgeorevidence.Inaddition,itoffersa‘wayofrestraining’theistic,andparticularlyChristian,beliefandpracticeandtherebysteersclearofan‘anythinggoes’fideism. Aseriousproblemwithprofaneknowledge,accordingtoK,isthatit‘doesnottouchmy lifeatall,itsdesires,itspassions,itsselfishness,andleavesmecompletelyunchanged’ (1876,116).BeforetheGodofunselfishlove,humanswouldbecalledtoachangeof becomingunselfishlylovingasGodisloving.

Kelaborateshisdistinctiveepistemologicalpositionasheexploresthe‘difference betweentruthandtruths’(1850,206).Hedrawsanimportantdistinctionbetweenknowingthetruthandbeingthetruth(1850,205–206).Withregardtosacredtruth,according toK,itmatters howoneacquires thistruth.Morespecifically,‘onlythendoIknowthe truth,whenitbecomesalifeinme’(1850,206).Inotherwords:‘knowingthetruthis somethingthatentirelyofitselfaccompaniesbeingthetruth,nottheotherwayaround’ (1850,205).Incontrasttothetruthsof‘alltemporal,earthly,[and]worldlygoals’,Khas inmind‘theethical,theethical-religious, thetruth’(1859,106).Phrasingthisdistinction anotherway,Kwrites:‘by truth Ialwaysunderstand eternaltruth’(1859,109–110).K’sconcernisnotwithmiscellaneoustruthsbutisratherwiththesacredtruthregardingGod’s redemptiveinterventioninhumanaffairs,particularlyinJesus.Moretothepoint,Khasin mindapersonalGodwho,withauthority,callspeopletoundergotransformationtoward God’smorallyperfectcharacter,and(sacred)knowledgeandevidencefollowsuit.Thatis, suchknowledgeandevidencearepurposivelydesignedfor‘singleindividuals’whoare willingtobechangedinthedirectionofGod’sredemptivetransformation.(SeeMoser 2008,2009,foranattempttodevelopsuchavolitionalreligiousepistemology.)

K’s‘God-relationship’isanythingbutanobjectofhumanspeculation.Itdemands engagementofthehumanwill(andchoice),onthebasisofadistinctivekindofcognitive‘restraining’foundinsincerehumanself-knowledge(beforeGod).Onecansincerely inquireabouttheingredientsofsuchself-knowledge,includingtheroleofdivineintervention,butsuchinquirywillhavetoaskabouthumanvolition.Inparticular,isaperson sincerely willing toundergothekindoftransformationinquestion?Ifnot,couldthisvolitionalpositioncloudotherwiseavailableevidenceorrestrainingfromGod?Thisquestion leadstotheissueofwhyGodisnotmoreobviousto(all)humans.Thereareresources inK’slaterworkstoaddressthisissue,andtheyofferanilluminatingresponse.

4.DivineHiding

Kdoesnotprovideaformalargumentseekingtojustify,excuse,orfullyexplaindivine hiddenness.However,throughouthislaterworksKprovidesnumerousreasonswhy manyindividualsdonotseeorrecognizeGod.Here,wewilldiscussfoursuchreasons. Ineachinstance,bothhumanvolitionandK’sconceptionofGodplaycrucialroles.

First,KmaintainsthatthosewhoseekGodmerelybymeansofobjectiveinformation willbefrustrated.AlthoughKdoesnotdisapproveofobjectiveknowledgeassuch (1847b,233;1848,119),hestronglywarnsagainstapproachingGodasanimpersonal objecttobestudied.Inhiswords,‘Godisnotlikesomethingonebuysinashop,orlike apieceofproperty’(1848,88).Instead,Godisapersonalagent,asubjectwithdefinite redemptivepurposesforhumans.HumanknowledgeofGod,therefore,oughttobe characterizedbysubjectivityandrelationality,notbyimpersonalordetachedformsof objectiveknowledge.MerelyobjectiveknowledgeaboutGoddoesnotentailpersonally knowingGodviaaGod-relationship(1848,197–199).Moreover,obtainingmerely objectiveknowledgemayalsopromotecomplacencyorafalsesenseofsuperiority.AsK putsit,the‘mostterriblethingofallis’tobe‘deceivedbymuchknowledge’(1847a, 153).Intheend,somepeoplewhopursueonlyobjectiveknowledgeorevidenceofGod missthefactthatGodisasubjectandtheythereforefailtoencounterGodasapersonal agent,aspersontopersoninan‘I-Thou’relationship.Inthisrespect,knowledgeofGod isnotavailableinapurelyobjectiveapproach(1846,55,66,77).

Second,KexpectsthatGodwillremainhiddenfrompresumptuousindividuals.In ChristianDiscourses,Kdevotesanentirediscoursetothethemeofpresumptuousness (1848,60–69).PresumptuousnessmightmanifestitselfwhensomeoneignoresGod, explicitlydeniesGod’sexistence,ordemandsparticularservicesfromGod.Allofthese manifestationsstemfromapositionofselfishnessandcognitivearrogancewhereinone desirestolive‘asifhewerehisownmaster,himselfthearchitectofhisfortune’(1848, 66–67).However,apresumptuousstancedemonstratesafundamentalmisunderstanding ofwhohumanbeingsareandwhoGodis.Humanbeingsarenotultimatelytheirown masters,justasGodisnotagenieinalampwhoexiststocatertotheirwishes.AsK pointsoutelsewhere,anattitudeofpresumptuousnessbeginsandendsindespair(1849a, 68).Therefore,suchanapproachislikelytoleaveonewithoutilluminationregarding God’sexistenceandcharacter.

ThethirdreasonwhyGodmayremainhiddenfrommanypeoplebringsusbackto thecrucialissueofself-knowledge.AccordingtoK,toknowandrelatetoGodproperly (asamorallyperfectagent),onemustbreakthroughtoaconsciousnessofone’ssin (1850,67–68,155;1847a,151–152;1847b,201;1855b,238).Sinandmoralimperfectionseparate,oralienate,humanbeingsfromtheholyandmorallyperfectGod(1849a, 75–131).Toleadpeopletosuchanawareness,accordingtoK,Godcreateseachhuman beingwithaninnerconscience,i.e.,apersonal‘preacherofrepentance’(1848,192; 1851c,182–183;1847a,128–134;1849a,124).However,thetruthofone’ssinfulnessis difficulttoconfrontforahuman.Manyhumansareafraidofthistruthandpreferto retainapostureofself-sufficiencyandanattitudeofselfishness(1847a,103;1848,170). Therefore,owingtoselfishchoices,actions,orfears,God’scalltomanyhumansviaconscienceisignoredoravoided(1847b,385;1848,253–254;1847a,128–129).Asaresult, suchpeoplefailtohearGod’svoice.

Finally,KexplainsthatJesus’lifeisthepossibilityofoffenseand,assuch,prevents manypeoplefromenjoyingaGod-relationship.Kemphasizessintodiscussforgiveness. Afterone’sconfessionofsin,theclaimsofJesusshouldbeofinteresttoone.Knotesthat JesusoffersresttoeachindividualthroughreconciliationwithGodandtheforgivenessof sins(1848,262–267;1849c,143,1851c,169–170;1850,11–22).However,manypeople donotacceptthisofferbecauseJesusisalsothepossibilityofoffense.Firstofall,itis potentiallyoffensivethatJesus,ahumanbeing,claimstohavedivineauthority(1872,33, 182–183;1851c,185).Next,itishighlyoffensivethatJesus‘declaredhimselftobeGod’ (1849b,63).Kdescribesindetailthevariouswaysinwhichthisclaimcanbeoffensive

ª 2010TheAuthors PhilosophyCompass 5/2(2010):127–135,10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00276.x JournalCompilation ª 2010BlackwellPublishingLtd

(1850,81–82,94–105;1849a,129–131).Theveryconceptofthe‘God–man’isalso problematicforsome.Kdescribesthis‘composite’astheabsoluteparadox(1850,30,63, 82,123),asa‘signofcontradiction’(1850,125),andassomethingthatbringstheunderstandingtoastandstill(1850,82,116,120).Thereisnoirrationalismhere,butratheran insistencethatprofanereasonandprofanehistorycanneverdirectlydemonstrate(i.e., deductivelyprove)thatJesusisalsoGod.Kmaintainsthatthissituationistheresultof Jesus’freechoicetohidehisdivinityinwhathecalls‘themostprofoundincognito’ (1850,128,131).Thesignificanceoftheincognitoisthatitforcestheissueofneeded humanfaithtotheforefront.Klikensthepossibilityofoffenseto‘standingatthecrossroad’,where‘oneturnseithertooffenseortofaith’(1850,81).Thosewhoareoffended atJesusturnawayfromfaithandhencealsofromforgivenessandapersonalGod-relationship.

EachofthereasonswehaveexaminedservestokeepGodhiddenfrommanypeople. Ineachcase,thehumanwilliscentral.Ferreira1991arguesthat,forK,theimagination ratherthanhumanvolitionisofprimaryimportanceinthetransitiontofaith.However, heraccountarguablydoesnotdojusticetoK’sunderstandingoftheroleofthehuman willincommitment,indifference,oroppositiontoGod.(Fordiscussion,includingabalancedcritique,ofFerreira’sposition,seeCome1997,320–337.)Afterall,howwe approachtheissueofGod’sexistenceisunderourcontrol,indirectlyifnotdirectly.Will onedemandmerelyobjectiveevidenceandknowledge?Willoneadoptanattitudeof presumptuousnessfromthestart?Italsoremainstoeachindividualtochooseone’s responsetoone’sconscienceandtoJesus.Willtheformerbeheededorignored?Will thelatterbeanoccasionforfaithoroffense?Noneoftheanswershereispredetermined. Althoughhumanimaginationundoubtedlyplaysarole,accordingtoK,itisultimately lefttothehumanwilltodecidewhatresponsetomake,ifany.

AlloftheaforementionedissuesareinseparablefromK’sconceptionofGod.When individualsthinkoractinwaysthatpreventthemfromrecognizingGod,itisoften becauseofamisunderstandingofthecharacterofGod.Tosearchforordemandmerely objectiveknowledgeofGodistomissthefactthatGodisasubject,apersonalagent withdefiniteredemptivepurposesforhumans.ToapproachGodpresumptuouslyignores thatthefactthatGod,ifGodexists,hasthewisdom,power,andauthoritytobe God, thatis,onewhoisworthyofworship.Thosewhodrownouttheirconsciencesometimes denyacontrastbetweenGod’smoralperfectionandtheirselfishnessandmoraldeficiencies.Inaddition,thosewhoareoffendedatJesusmightmisunderstandGod’shumble, compassionate,andself-sacrificingloveforGod’slostanddyingcreatures.

Inthe Postscript,Kposesthequestion:‘WhyisGodillusive?’(1846,243).Hisanswer isthatGod‘istruthandinbeingillusiveseekstokeepapersonfromuntruth’(1846, 244).Aswehaveseen,thesecondauthorshipsupportsthisresponse.Godrefusesto appearinwaysthatmisrepresentGod’scharacterorareotherwiseantitheticaltoGod’s purposes.God’sillusivenessthereforestemsfromGod’sloveandactuallyprotectshuman beings.Inmanycases,suchhiddennesspreservesthepossibilityofareconciledGod–humanrelationshipthroughfaiththatincreasinglytransformsahumanintoGod’sunselfish,lovinglikeness.Atthesametime,wemustallowthatsomeoneinasincerequestfor Godcanbeindoubt(atleastforatime)aboutGod’sexistence.Suchobjectivedoubtis fullycompatiblewithavolitionallysensitivequestforGod.ItisGod’ssoleprerogativeto setthefittingtimetoremoveobjectivedoubtaboutdivineexistence.(Forelaboration, seeMoser2008,2009.)

Insum,then,K’sconceptionofGodismorallyrobustandexistentiallysignificantfor humans.Clearly,itisnotaconceptiondesignedforpeoplelookingforaspectatorsport. Kierkegaard’sConceptionofGod133 ª 2010TheAuthors PhilosophyCompass 5/2(2010):127–135,10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00276.x JournalCompilation ª 2010BlackwellPublishingLtd

134Kierkegaard’sConceptionofGod

Inparticular,itbringsamorallyseriouschallengetoinquirers,achallengeregardingwho theyareandwhotheyshouldbeinthepresenceofaGodofmorallyperfect,unselfish love.ThischallengeisattheveryheartofwhatMartinBuber(1923),underK’sinfluence,callsthe‘I-Thou’relationshipbetweenahumanandGod.Itisalsoattheheartof thekindofexistentialcrisisthatloomslarge,againunderK’sinfluence,intheearly 20th-centurytheologicalwritingsofP.T.Forsyth,KarlBarth,RudolfBultmann,Emil Brunner,H.H.Farmer,andDietrichBonhoeffer.

ShortBiography

PaulK.MoserisProfessorandChairpersonofPhilosophyatLoyolaUniversityChicago. Heistheauthorof TheElusiveGod (CambridgeUniversityPress,2008)and TheEvidence forGod (CambridgeUniversityPress,2009).MarkL.McCreary,PhD,teachesphilosophy atLoyolaUniversityChicago.

Note

*Correspondence:DepartmentofPhilosophy,LoyolaUniversityChicago,1032WestSheridanRoad,Chicago, IL60660-1537,USA.Email:pmoser@luc.edu.

WorksCited

Blanshard,Brand.‘KierkegaardonFaith.’ EssaysonKierkegaard.Ed.JerryGill.Minneapolis:Burgess,1969.113–26. Buber,Martin. IandThou,trans.R.G.Smith.NewYork:Scribner,1923. Come,ArnoldB. KierkegaardasTheologian:RecoveringMySelf.Montreal:McGill-Queen’sPress,1997. Dewey,BradleyR. TheNewObedience:KierkegaardonImitatingChrist.Washington ⁄ Cleveland:CorpusBooks, 1968.

Evans,C.Stephen. FaithBeyondReason:AKierkegaardianAccount.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1998.

——. Kierkegaard’sEthicofLove:DivineCommandsandMoralObligations.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2006. Fenger,Henning. Kierkegaard:TheMythsandTheirOrigins.Trans.GeorgeC.Schoolfield.NewHaven,CT:Yale UniversityPress,1980.

Ferreira,M.Jamie. TransformingVision:ImaginationandWillinKierkegaardianFaith.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1991. ——. Love’sGratefulStriving:ACommentaryonKierkegaard’sWorksofLove.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2001. Garelick,Herbert. TheAnti-ChristianityofKierkegaard.TheHague:MartinusNijhoff,1965.

Garff,Joakim.‘‘‘Toproducewasmylife’’:ProblemsandPerspectiveswithintheKierkegaardianBiography.’ KierkegaardRevisited:ProceedingsfromtheConference‘‘KierkegaardandtheMeaningofMeaningIt’’Copenhagen,May 5–9,1996.EdsNielsJørgenCappelørn,JonStewart.NewYork:WalterdeGruyter,1997.75–93.

——.‘TheEyesofArgus: ThePointofView andPointsofViewwithRespecttoKierkegaard’s‘Activityasan Author’.’ Kierkegaard:ACriticalReader.EdsJonathanRe ´ e,JaneChamberlain.Malden,MA:Blackwell,1998. 75–102.

——.‘RereadingOneself.’ SørenKierkegaardNewsletter 38(1999):9–14. Gouwens,DavidJ. KierkegaardasReligiousThinker.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1996. Hall,AmyLaura. KierkegaardandtheTreacheryofLove.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002. Kierkegaard,Søren. TheSicknessuntoDeath.Trans.H.V.Hong,E.H.Hong.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press,1980[1849a].

——.‘ForSelf-Examination.’ ForSelf-ExaminationandJudgeforYourself!.Trans.H.V.Hong,E.H.Hong.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1990[1851b].1–87.

——.‘JudgeforYourself!.’ ForSelf-ExaminationandJudgeforYourself!.Trans.H.V.Hong,E.H.Hong.Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress,1990[1876].89–215.

——. PracticeinChristianity.Trans.H.V.Hong,E.H.Hong.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1991[1850].

——. ConcludingUnscientificPostscripttoPhilosophicalFragments.Trans.H.V.Hong,E.H.Hong.Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress,1992[1846].

——. UpbuildingDiscoursesinVariousSpirits.Trans.H.V.Hong,E.H.Hong.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press,1993[1847a].

——. WorksofLove.Trans.H.V.Hong,E.H.Hong.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1995[1847b].

ª 2010TheAuthors PhilosophyCompass 5/2(2010):127–135,10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00276.x JournalCompilation ª 2010BlackwellPublishingLtd

——. ChristianDiscourses.Trans.H.V.Hong,E.H.Hong.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1997[1848].

——.‘TwoEthical-ReligiousEssays.’ WithoutAuthority.Trans.H.V.Hong,E.H.Hong.Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress,1997[1849b].47–108.

——.‘ThreeDiscoursesattheCommuniononFridays.’ WithoutAuthority.Trans.H.V.Hong,E.H.Hong. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1997[1849c].109–44.

——.‘TwoDiscoursesattheCommuniononFridays.’ WithoutAuthority.Trans.H.V.Hong,E.H.Hong.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1997[1851c].161–88.

——. TheBookonAdler.Trans.H.V.Hong,E.H.Hong.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1998[1872].

——.‘OnMyWorkasanAuthor.’ ThePointofView.Trans.H.V.Hong,E.H.Hong.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1998[1851a].1–20.

——.‘ThePointofViewforMyWorkasanAuthor.’ ThePointofView.Trans.H.V.Hong,E.H.Hong.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1998[1859].21–126.

——.‘ThisMustBeSaid;SoLetItBeSaid.’ ‘‘TheMoment’’andLateWritings.Trans.H.V.Hong,E.H.Hong. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1998[1855a].71–78.

——.‘TheMoment,I–IX.’ ‘‘TheMoment’’andLateWritings.Trans.H.V.Hong,E.H.Hong.Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress,1998[1855b].87–126,139–261,283–325.

——.‘TheChangelessnessofGod:ADiscourse.’ ‘‘TheMoment’’andLateWritings.Trans.H.V.Hong,E.H. Hong.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1998[1855c].263–81.

Law,DavidR. KierkegaardasNegativeTheologian.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1993.

——.‘HowChristianisKierkegaard’sGod?.’ ScottishJournalofTheology 48(1995):301–14. Mackey,Louis. PointsofView:ReadingsofKierkegaard.Tallahassee:UniversityPressesofFlorida,1986. Moser,PaulK. TheElusiveGod:ReorientingReligiousEpistemology.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2008.

——. TheEvidenceforGod:ReligiousKnowledgeReexamined.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2009. Penelhum,Terence. GodandSkepticism:AStudyinSkepticismandFideism.Dordrecht:D.Reidel,1983. Walsh,Sylvia.‘ReadingKierkegaardwithKierkegaardAgainstGarff.’ SørenKierkegaardNewsletter 38(1999):4–8.

——. LivingChristianly:Kierkegaard’sDialecticofChristianExistence.UniversityPark,PA:PennsylvaniaState UniversityPress,2005.

Kierkegaard’sConceptionofGod135 ª 2010TheAuthors