The Genius of Dostoevsky's Rebellion
The nuance of his 19th century argument and its continued importance
The Problem of Evil
To properly understand the complexity and power of Dostoevsky’s argument, it is essential that one first understand what is often described as the problem of evil - the conflict between God’s presumed attributes, those being his omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence, and the fact that bad things continue to happen in the world regardless. For evil to exist, it seems as though God must either be unaware of it, so not all-knowing, unable to prevent it, so not all-powerful, or is unwilling to prevent it, so not perfectly good. 1
Many argue that due to the finitude of the human mind, it is impossible for humans to ever understand or comprehend the infinitude of the divine. Although by human standards of morality, God may seem morally corrupt, there is no reason to believe that God’s moral standards are at all similar to our own. If humans admit that God is incomprehensible, then the prospect of the existence of evil and God’s attributes can be reconciled in some manner that will forever remain a mystery to the limited capacity of the human mind.2
The problem of evil is also often referred to as the question of theodicy.
Rebellion
In The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky deeply explores this question, particularly through the depiction of a conversation between the fictional characters of Ivan Karamazov and his brother, Alyosha. To contextualize the conversation, Alyosha firmly believes that Ivan is an atheist. Both brothers endured a great deal of suffering throughout their childhoods, however reacted to it in different manners - Alyosha chose to embrace faith and spirituality while Ivan questioned the existence of God, or at the very least a benevolent one, all together. Ivan even holds some contempt for his brother for his boundless (though not blind) spirituality, questioning how Alyosha could remain spiritual despite the suffering both were forced to endure in their early years.
Ivan looks at every facet of life through a deeply analytical lens, often being perceived as detached or insensitive as a result. In this conversation with his brother, however, Ivan displays an empathetic quality he had not otherwise exhibited in the book. He particularly exhibits this empathy as it pertains to the innocence of children and the suffering they are forced to endure despite it. He says to his brother “you may be surprised at me, Alyosha, I love little children terribly too.”3 A psychoanalysis of Ivan’s emotions here would likely reveal that this empathy stems from the suffering he was forced to endure as a child despite his own innocence.
The Old Testament’s Book of Job touches upon the issue. In making Job suffer, God chose to kill his children. Ultimately, however, Job’s good fortune was restored by God due to Job’s choice to remain faithful despite the injustice of his suffering. One (like Ivan) can reasonably argue that a God deserving of human love and worship would never sacrifice the lives of innocent children to reach harmonious ends. The suffering that occurs prior to the end must not be ignored.
Eventually, Ivan poses to his brother one of the most revered hypotheticals in literary history - would Alyosha be willing to “torture one tiny little creation” to “[make] people happy, [and to give] them peace and rest at last.”4 Alyosha’s response, in which he asserts that he would not make this sacrifice and implies that he would find another way to achieve this “harmony,” naturally sparks the larger question: then why, with all his power and supposed benevolence, would God?
Ivan refuses to believe that it is acceptable to love God given the suffering God creates or at the very least allows. To Ivan, to place faith in a power such as the Church is to place faith in a system that institutionalizes suffering. For the same reason that many begin to lose faith after World Wars, the question of theodicy continues to torment Ivan as a result of the suffering he was forced to endure as an innocent child; suffering that may have been the result of factors far outside of his own control… but likely not far outside of a God’s.
The Complexity of Ivan’s Argument
The problem of evil is often explained in a logical manner - an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent God would not allow for evil to occur; therefore, God must either not possess one of those attributes or must not exist. The obvious answer to this concern is the aforementioned argument that humans are incapable of understanding God due to the finitude of the human mind.
Unlike many non-believers and skeptics, however, Ivan, for the sake of his argument, goes so far as to grant the existence of a God, his presumed attributes, and the existence of some sort of predestined plan, created by that God, to one day achieve perfect peace and harmony.
But he makes a much deeper, more nuanced, and not so easily refutable argument. He argues that regardless of the perfection and harmoniousness of God’s ultimate plan for the world, the ends, from no perspective, can ever possibly justify the means. Moreover, if this is God’s definition of omni-benevolence, the true definition that is apparently beyond the reach of the finite human mind, that omni-benevolence, and thus God, must be feared.
If this is an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent God’s world - a world in which all humans suffer so extensively and intensively - that God must be feared.
So many desperately search for an answer to the problem of evil.
So many hope to find an answer to the question of why.
Dostoevsky, however, sheds light on a grim reality. He suggests that it may be for the best that the question of theodicy remains a question.
Because it is very likely that the answer to that question would be absolutely horrifying; one that permanently transforms the image of God from one of hope to one of fear, in the eyes of all.
- Surya Rai
Hume, David, and Martin Bell. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 186. London: Penguin Books, Limited, 1779.
Peterson, Michael, William Hasker, Bruce R. Reichenbach, and David Basinger. 2014. Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, 283-284. Oxford University Press
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, Susan M. R. Oddo, Constance Garnett, and Ralph E. Matlaw. The Brothers Karamazov: A Revised Translation, Contexts, Criticism, 205. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2011. Print.
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, Susan M. R. Oddo, Constance Garnett, and Ralph E. Matlaw. The Brothers Karamazov: A Revised Translation, Contexts, Criticism, 213. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2011. Print.