The Brothers Karamazov and Theism vs Atheism

[Fletcher]

This was sparked by bothe the Sun-Tsu thread and the Arguments for atheism thread.

The Brothers Karamazov is the last book Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote before he died. Within it are two chapters which are considered the greatest arguments for atheism in all of literature. The chapters are 'Rebellion' and 'the Grand Inquisitor.'

However, having recently read the book, I thought that in the end they were a kind of subtle 'case for christ.'

the Brothers Karamazov is often included in '10 best books ever written' lists; has anyone else read the book and are you interested in discussing?

If nobody responds, I will perhaps mimic Calvanist and post a brief article or two in a few days...

Mat

[Pilgrim]

Fletcher:
This was sparked by bothe the Sun-Tsu thread and the Arguments for atheism thread.

The Brothers Karamazov is the last book Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote before he died. Within it are two chapters which are considered the greatest arguments for atheism in all of literature. The chapters are 'Rebellion' and 'the Grand Inquisitor.'

However, having recently read the book, I thought that in the end they were a kind of subtle 'case for christ.'

the Brothers Karamazov is often included in '10 best books ever written' lists; has anyone else read the book and are you interested in discussing?

If nobody responds, I will perhaps mimic Calvanist and post a brief article or two in a few days...

Mat

I agree with you on the Grand Inquisitor. That seems to me more a case for Christ than against Christ. If it is an argument against anything, it is an argument against "relgion" or "church systems" that try to hard to protect or shield people from truth for selfish reasons.

Pilgrim

[Fletcher]

Apparently in Kurt Vonnegut's book, "Slaughterhouse 5" it says, "Everything you need to know about life can be found in The Brothers Karamazov."

I'll be back later...

Mat

[TheFiveSolas]

I was really hoping to get some time to address this thread since I recently taught on the problem of evil and quoted from the Brothers Karamazoz at the start of my lecture.
However, between work, teaching, and studying I haven't been able to set aside the time so I will merely point you to an excellent article. Hope you find it enlightening and thought-provoking!

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa105.htm

[flipper]

Much though I love Kurt V, I would suggest that all you need to know about day-to-day life can be found in Catch 22.

[Solly]

I have read BK recently; I would agree that it makes the case for Christ.

From what I know of him, FD struggled in his life between his competing passions - to be religious and to indulge himself. I think we find in the three brothers images of himself, as he saw himself, as he thought he might be, and as he would like to be. But we could avoid the "Personal Heresy" and just say that they represent man in three stages: rebellion, doubt, and assurance.

Ivan is the out and out atheist who rejects morality on the basis that God does not exist, so "everything is permissable". This was a problem in FD's day, what with the anarchists and communists etc who were avowedly atheist, and their affect on Russian society.

Dimitri is "Everyman", the complex man of honour and passion, who cannot control himself, no matter how much he knows he should and wants to. But in the end, honour and a sense of right and wrong pull him back from the brink of committing and act against man and God.

Alexey is FD as he would want to be; the man of God at home in monastery and the world. Not perfect, but not floored by his imperfections. The triumph of grace over nature & nurture, which resounds in the final chapter: Hurrah for Karamazov!

I think the Grand Inquisitor episode is FD's commentary on what religion had become in serving the needs of nature and nurture rather than God - much as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche criticised Christianity. The monastery itself is not perfect, having its own collection of frauds and fruitcakes. What matters is our own existential decision in the light of the revelation of Christ and his way - as Tolstoy also saw it - and in our daily experiences. FD portrayed the end result of our choices, in Ivan and Dimitri, as well as Fyodor. That choices have consequences - a truism I know - beyond the mere event; they change our life, they direct our life, and affect the choices we make further down the line. It becomes our fate, our rut. Alexey is the only person who has the ability to get out of a rut, and he stirs up the boys to see that; to remember the past and look to the future.

Ivan succombed completely. Dimitri, though entangled in a legal system that could not acquit him (as well as the opinion of his jurors), yet still had an avenue of escape, a chance to start again - with love and honesty. Alexey changes other peoples lives.

In Ivan and Dimitri we have the "presence of the past" via nature and nurture - from their father. In Alexey we have the presence of Grace, from Zossima. All bear the image of their fathers; but Alexeys' comes from God, while Ivan goes to the devil: literally!!

A few thoughts. :read:

[Pilgrim]

Well said Solly. As you Brits say, that was right pucker!

[Ishmael]

I saw this thread and wanted immediately to revitalize it!

Of course I love this gripping novel more than most of the novels I have read and almost as well as I love that greatest novel ever Moby Dick. But the religious themes are a backdrop on the real points of the novel. The bastard son is left out of Solly's remarks here, I wonder why?

I was moved most by the romantic interests in the novel. Each woman was interesting to me and I litterally fretted with jealously along with Dimitri when I read the book. Interesting experience.

As for Alyosha and the monestary. It was freeing for me to hear the old monk tell "dear sweet" Alyosha to leave the monstery and that the life of a monk was not for him. How I fell in love with the dieing Monk after that.

[Solly]

The bastard son is left out of Solly's remarks here, I wonder why?


No covert reason Ish, I just didn't remember it at the time. Could you perhaps expound on its significance, since it is now a year later on, and I can't remember which one was which. Not that I was trying for allegory, just homiletical lessons.

slly

[Ishmael]

That's right leave the metaphorical to poor old philosophical Ishmael...

The bastard son (I cannot recall his name). He killed his father on behalf of Dimitri and to take the 3000 rubles for himself. He hated the old man because of how he treated his mother, but wanted the approval for murder from the spirited, love-crazed, Dimitri. But when confronted with the truth from Alyosha he killed himself before taking the blame for the murder and thus freeing his supposed co-murder and condemning himself.

This bastard is that wicked part of us. It is abused and motherless and wrecks vengeance on abusers. Alyosha's crippled girlfriend of of the same spirit as evidence by her cruel treatment of the kindest of men, Alyosha. These are the devils from TBK.

[Solly]

:thumb: shades of Freudian analysis, an Oedipus Complex as well!!

So, even Ivan was working to a code, however distorted. There is no true autonomy, the universe is not morally free, and you reap what you sow.

[Ben Franklin]

I agree with you on the Grand Inquisitor. That seems to me more a case for Christ than against Christ. If it is an argument against anything, it is an argument against "relgion" or "church systems" that try to hard to protect or shield people from truth for selfish reasons.

Pilgrim

Another interesting work is a novel written by Dr. Jose Rizal, a Philippines' independence intellectual, titled, "Noli Me Tangere" (Touch not my Cancer). Written in Spanish, he outlines the brutality of the Spanish Catholic Church in his homeland. Scary stuff... *shiver* He was later exiled, returned, and then executed by the colonial government just prior to the Spanish-American War. He was definitely bitter against the Church but not against God.

:pray:

[Celsus]

Just a shameless plug, but there is an ongoing book-by-book discussion (http://eblaforum.org/main/viewforum.php?f=16) on the Brothers K at Ebla forums right now, and it would be great if some Christians joined in!

Joel

[mattbballman19]

Yo

which are considered the greatest arguments for atheism in all of literature.

Nah. All Dostoevsky did was take the traditional problem of evil (be it logical or evidential) and proceeded to bring to the fore the most graphic instances of evil ever read. At its core, it relies heavily upon shock effect such that the reader is so appalled that God would never fill in the blank. Although it is a masterful work of fiction, to say it has the best arguments for atheism would be an overstatement. Martin, Flew, Nielson, Mackie, Rowe, et al have all contributed more philosophically, as far as arguments for atheism go, than Dostoevsky.

matt

[Vorkosigan]

Martin, Flew, Nielson, Mackie, Rowe, et al have all contributed more philosophically, as far as arguments for atheism go, than Dostoevsky

Yes, but none of them were literature people. Most people, as far as they are familiar with literary works that question the idea and ideals of God, put tBK up at the top of literary works addressing the issue. Personally I think the SF writers do a better job than old Fyodor at addressing the idea of God and absolute morals in fiction -- Harry Harrison has done some very fine work (Deathworld 2, for example) -- but few people consider them literature.

Vorkosigan

[mattbballman19]

Yes, but none of them were literature people.

Good point. I was understanding 'literature' to encompass fiction and non-fiction.

matt

[Black Fog]

I was really hoping to get some time to address this thread since I recently taught on the problem of evil and quoted from the Brothers Karamazoz at the start of my lecture.
However, between work, teaching, and studying I haven't been able to set aside the time so I will merely point you to an excellent article. Hope you find it enlightening and thought-provoking!

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa105.htm
Many thanks for citing that article. Since you've taught on the problem of evil, perhaps you could offer a few recommendations for books (preferably books written within the last five years) that deal with it.

Have you read "The Heart of Darkness"? I am especially interested in this problem because so few people nowadays take evil seriously. The trend is to try to "explain" it by reducing it to something else, preferably something which can be described by using non-moral language. In short, to explain it by explaining it away. I've come to understand that it's only when we allow ourselves to have a gut experience of evil, to perceive it existentially, that we realize that the only justification for human existence is the quest for the good, and especially the absolute, unconditioned good. This is the message one gets from thinkers like Dostoievski. There is a depth in his work that's conspicuously absent in the arid, abstract discussions of evil by contemporary Western analytic philosophers. But even they are profound compared to the monistic philosophers of the New Age, who deal disingenuously with evil, by dismissing it as "ignorance" or "illusion." What's never explained is how or why we humans are subject to ignorance or illusion to begin with.
Black Fog

[Ishmael]

I am reading Crime and Punishment right now (slowly) and I like it very much. The BK is so much better to me they aren't really worth grouping together. I see one as a master piece and the other as a great book. But what do I know...?

[Lizard]

Note to self. Finish reading BK. This thread inspired me to start, but I got about 1/3 finished and havn't picked it back up.