The Brothers Karamazov is a novel by Fyodor Dostoevsky that attempts to explain the philosophy behind Christianity. It also has explanations of the other side–the Atheists. Atheists in this sense don’t necessarily mean not believing in god, but rather rejecting him. Ivan Karamazov is a blatant example of this. In a conversation with Alyosha, he explains his viewpoint on God, and how he finds many aspects of Christianity ridiculous. He begins by discussing that although can’t reject God in his heart, he can’t accept him or the world he has made either. To explain himself, he sets up a series of arguments, the first about how he doesn’t understand how any human could truly love his neighbor, and the second delves into how a just God could allow the torture of innocent children and animals. Ivan finishes his argument with an unwritten poem he made up called “The Grand Inquisitor,” which sums up how he feels about the way God set up the world.
On the other side of the argument, Father Zosima tells stories of his life experiences, including conversations with his late brother, references from the Bible, the duel he had over a woman, and of the mysterious visitor he had after the duel. All of these experiences refute Ivan’s claims in some way, and we are left to wonder whether the claims made by Father Zosima are adequate. Even though Father Zosima’s stories refute some of the claims made by Ivan, it doesn’t address all, and therefore Zosima’s response is inadequate.
In the chapter “Rebellion,” Alyosha, Ivan’s brother, finds Ivan sitting alone in a restaurant. Alyosha sits with him and asks to get to know him better. They begin discussing God, and Ivan states that in his heart he has not rejected God but he finds the world that he has created unacceptable. Then, to explain himself further, he uses three main points: loving ones neighbor, the tortures of the innocent, and the Grand Inquisitor. The first argument explains his refutation of the claim that humans can truly love their neighbors. He gives the example of John the Merciful, who let a cold, hungry beggar into his home, and “took him into his bed, held him in his arms, and began breathing into his mouth, which was putrid and loathsome from some awful disease” (296).
127 our experts are availableright now
Ivan claims that this is self-laceration, meaning to cause oneself harm, because he had to put himself in danger and in a disgusting situation to uphold his duty to be charitable. In another example, he uses the people he sees in his town. They all claim to love their neighbors, but they can be incredibly cruel to others when they come in contact with someone like a beggar. Men are unable to admit the suffering of a beggar, because he’s unappealing to look at and to be around. And if no one takes pity for his suffering, how can they claim that they “love their neighbors?”
Another one of the main points Ivan focuses on to prove his original statement, as well as the strongest argument he has, is the tortures of the innocents. He doesn’t understand why a loving god would allow the suffering of people that don’t deserve it. Children are the specific focus of this argument, because Ivan claims he needs to narrow his argument to make it clearer. He also states that “grown-up people…they’ve eaten the apple and know good and evil…they go on eating it still. But the children haven’t eaten anything, and are so far innocent” (297). Adults are impure, they all have committed sins in some form or another, and are corrupted by knowledge. However, children aren’t old enough yet to have sinned. Furthermore, they haven’t been corrupted by knowledge, which includes the knowledge of good and evil. They simply don’t understand these concepts, so everything they do is innocent. Why then, would God allow them to endure pain, torture, and suffering? Ivan lists six examples that he’s found in news clippings and poems to support his claim, of which four are explained below.
The first is a story about a baby being brutally murdered by Turks. The Turks take the baby away from its mother, who is still watching, and entertain the baby until it laughs. Then they point a pistol at the infant, who laughs and reaches for the pistol, and they shoot the baby in the face. According to the Bible, the Turks can be forgiven. But Ivan disagrees, he believes the only person allowed to forgive them is the baby. The mother can forgive them for causing her emotional distress, but not for the slaughter of her baby.
The second is a story about a well-educated gentleman and his wife beating their child with a birch shoot that has little twigs on it, which the gentlemen enjoyed because “it stings more” (302). With each hit, they get more and more excited until the child dies. The case is brought to court, but the abuser is acquitted because it was just a simple case of “disciplining a child.” The jury accepted this, which shows that this is not an isolated ideal. There was no apparent reason for this extensive abuse, however it was still clearly considered not much of a problem. This is also an example of people not wanting to accept the suffering of others, because the people in the jury as well as the public don’t identify with the child, they identify with the adults. They disregarded the suffering of an innocent child to prevent the suffering of someone well-respected and educated.
The third is about a five year old that was beaten, kicked, smeared with feces and forced to eat it, and then left in a freezing outhouse overnight, solely because she wet the bed. While she was in the outhouse, she punched her chest repeatedly, crying out for God to protect her. Her parents reportedly hated her and were well-educated, well-respected citizens. This is another example of adults loving to torture children. Ivan believes adults love to target children because of their “defenselessness that tempts the tormentor…the angelic confidence of the child who has no refuge and no appeal” (302). He believes every man has a “demon of rage” inside of them, and continues to question how God could let such a pure soul suffer this much. He states he has been told that man could not exist without knowing good and evil and asks why we need this knowledge of good and evil if it causes this much suffering?
The fourth story is about an eight year old serf boy that injured the favorite hunting dog of the general he was working for. The general, as punishment, locked him up overnight, then in the morning, he undresses the boy, orders him to run, and releases his wolfhounds to chace the boy down. The wolfhounds maul him to death in front of his mother. Ivan then asks Alyosha what the general deserved to satisfy our moral conscious. Alyosha replies, “to be shot” (304), and then admits the absurdity of his statement. Ivan contends that absurdity is exactly his point, as explained by the following quote: “The world stands on absurdities, perhaps nothing would have come to pass in it without them” (304-305). What he means by this is that he can’t understand why the world is the way that it is, and everything he has been taught about the world doesn’t sit well with him. He wants justice on earth, not in the afterlife.
After Ivan rants the suffering of the innocents, Alyosha asks him about Jesus. This, in turn, leads into Ivans final argument: an unwritten poem he made up, called The Grand Inquisitor. He tells a story about how Jesus returned to earth in Spain during the Inquisition. The Grand Inquisitor imprisons Jesus and explains why he can’t be on earth. He says Christ’s work is at odds with the church, as shown by the following quote: “thou hast no right to add anything to what thou hadst said of old. Why then, art thou come to hinder us?” (313-314). He says that Satan was correct during the exchange with the the three temptations. The first was bread, after Jesus had not eaten for forty days. He rejected the offer because, as Jesus said, “man lives not by bread alone” (317). By doing this, he did not give man a reason to believe in God. Men are too weak-minded when they’re hungry to live by the word of God only. They would choose freedom from hunger over their freedom of choice. In the second temptation, Satan asked Jesus to perform a miracle, and once again Jesus denied. This, too, was a mistake, as humans need miracles to truly believe. They need a supernatural being to worship. The final temptation Satan gave was power over all of the kingdoms of the world. But Jesus denied. Once again, he should have accepted, according to the Grand Inquisitor. But because he didn’t, the church must now do so for him.
The Grand Inquisitor believes that the freedom Jesus gave to mankind made them suffer, so, to make mankind happy, the church must revoke that freedom. Jesus damned humanity by giving us the choice to choose what we believe. Humans are not strong enough to believe in God out of their own free will, and therefore will go to Hell. But if the church takes it away, makes everyone believe, and give them security, they will all be saved. Therefore, the church no longer accepts Jesus because of what he has done.
This final argument shows Ivan’s rejection of religion in its purest sense. He doesn’t believe in the ability of religion to guide mankind, especially since God has all the power to change things and remove suffering, but chooses to give humans freedom instead. A quote that sums up all of these arguments into one idea is that, “it’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket” (307). He means that because of all of these sufferings and because of the way God chose to let us live, he can’t accept the way the world is, and wants something else.
Father Zosima provides interesting refutations to these arguments. Although he isn’t directly replying to Ivan, he seems to refute some of his claims. The first refers to Zosima’s brother, Markel, who died Zosima was young. Before he got sick he was not very religious, but after he began to have faith. During his final days he asked his servants why they are taking care of him, saying, “dear kind people, why are you doing so much for me, do I deserve to be waited on? If it were God’s will for me to live, I would wait on you, for all men should wait on one another” (363). This is an example refuting Ivan’s claim that no one can love their neighbor up close. Markel has found grace in his heart to admit the sufferings of his servants, and to ask why they put themselves through this for him, especially since he will die. He doesn’t want them to suffer for his sake which is an act of love.
Another example of this is when he says, “…though I can’t explain it to you, I like to humble myself before them, for I don’t know how to love them enough” (365). In this quote he is talking about nature, because the window of his bedroom overlooks a garden. He feels shame because he cannot love them enough, he doesn’t know how. This is an act of loving your neighbor, even if he doesn’t know how. He’s longing to love them more than he already does. Another example Zosima gives of loving his neighbor is before the duel, when he beats his servant, regrets it in the morning, apologizes and bows before him. He realized how to love his servant, and understand his suffering.
Father Zosima’s second refutation is the Book of Job. The Book of Job counters the point Ivan made in the Grand Inquisitor that mankind is too weak willed to believe in a God that doesn’t give them food, miracles, or a supreme ruler. The story starts by God turning Job over to the Devil to prove that his most loyal servant would never refute him. Job lost his family, his wealth, and ended up with nothing. But, instead of cursing god or losing faith in him, he said “Naked I came out of my mother’s womb, and naked I shall return to the earth; the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord forever and ever” (368). Job never lost faith, as Ivan would have predicted in the Grand Inquisitor.
Zosima’s third story is about the duel and the murderer he encountered in his youth. Before he was a monk, Zosima was a military officer. Essentially, he fell in love with a girl but realized she had gotten married and he challenged her husband to a duel. The night before the duel, he beat his servant savagely, as has already been discussed. Apologizing to his servant was a turning point for him, and when he arrived at the duel, he let the man shoot, then apologized to him for acting so irrationally. The man accepted. He then resigned from the military and applied to go live in a monastery. While he still lived in that town, he encountered a man that seemed to be fond of him. The man visited often, and eventually they became close. After knowing each other, the man confessed that he had murdered someone, and the murder had been pinned on an innocent servant who died of a cold before he could defend himself. At first, the man didn’t feel any guilt, he donated the money to make him feel better about the theft, and for a long time he was at peace. He tried not to think about what he had done. But after a while the guilt set in.
He married and had children but couldn’t love or caress them because he felt unworthy of their love, as they were innocent. He became suicidal, and he also debated just telling everyone what happened for three years until the duel happened. It was then that he knew Zosima could help him. Zosima tells the man that he should tell everyone. He does this, and everyone just thinks he’s crazy. He is not tried for the murder. This story is in contrast with the Grand Inquisitor, as in the Grand Inquisitor an innocent man is captured, where as a guilty man is not imprisoned for his actions. it also shows that the man cares about children, unlike the people in the case of the educated gentleman beating his child with a birch. He loves them enough to feel disgusted at the thought of touching them and interacting with them, because he is so sinful, and they are so pure.
In conclusion, Although Father Zosima gives good points to disprove Ivan’s argument, They seem to just fall short. They don’t fully address the points Ivan gives, and they more just express his love for life and God, rather than explain why one should accept God and the world he has created. Ivan’s questions about the tortures of the innocent go unanswered, because there is no good answer to give in the defense of God. It could be that most people, such as Father Zosima and other religious people, don’t need a “good” answer to this, as their answer lies in their trust of God, but for Ivan and other Russian Atheists, it is something that needs an answer. There is however, a good parallel between the harshness and anxiety in Ivan’s stories and the gentle, calming nature of Father Zosima’s stories. Perhaps Dostoevsky’s point wasn’t to prove the atheists wrong, but to show that the world would be more peaceful if mankind followed God.
