As many philosophy students will agree, a seemingly ridiculous amount of philosophers reference Dostoyevsky. From Camus to Nietzsche, almost everyone has something to say on the works of the fictional author. After hearing the name Ivan Karamazov one too many times, I finally decided to find out for myself what exactly made the author so special and embarked on the 761-page novel. It turned out to be well worth the hype, and I would thoroughly recommend it to anyone interested in religion or with a passion for neo-gothic fiction – I can’t help feeling that I missed out by not reading the book in Durham itself as I can only imagine reading it within the Castle courtyard or around our Cathedral would immensely add to the experience.

The tale centres around three brothers: the pious and selfless and innocent Alyosha, the rational yet miserable Ivan and the erratic and wildly passionate Dmitri. While the main plot is a murder mystery discovering which brother (if one indeed did) killed their father, the focus of the philosophers is on Dostoyevsky’s fascinating look at religion. The Brothers Karamazov contains some of the most brilliantly articulated discussions of religion, as the novel serves as a defence of Christianity and Alyosha’s devotion to God serves in sharp contrast to Ivan’s rational atheism, making for interesting debates. Dostoyevsky’s support for Christianity does not come through a logical claim that God necessarily exists, but a more emotional one about the power which God can have over an individual’s attitude to life, and how belief in an external omnibenevolent force is required to maintain hope and even sanity. However, Ivan does still make an impassioned and highly convincing speech on the problem of evil and how it poses too much of a barrier to accept that a loving God exists. Perhaps Dostoyevsky writes his speech a little too well, as throughout the novel I sympathised heavily with both perspectives, remaining undecided on whether the emotional benefits of belief in the divine are significant enough to overlook the devastation and conflict our world is filled with.

Ivan’s famous speech which describes the problem of evil would appeal to even the most devout of believers, and succeeds in shaking piety of Alyosha for a moment. He describes, with clear anguish for the victims, cases of child cruelty – if the religious will argue that those with knowledge have free will and deserve to be punished in line with their actions, surely this cannot apply to children as they are too innocent to deserve any of the atrocities described. This certainly rings true – while the  pathos in the examples are selected to touch the reader’s heart, the reader could open any news site now and likely find many similar cases – his argument that he cannot accept the existence of a God who would allow this to happen is highly persuasive, and his conclusion that, ‘It’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I must respectfully return Him my ticket’ (the ticket being one to heaven) is natural, and seems the only ethical course of action. There is almost no counter to this – it is impossible to deny the plenitude of suffering of the innocent, and impossible to imagine any divine plan which could at all make up for this. So how then, after including a speech so fantastic, does Dostoyevsky nevertheless use his novel to support monotheistic religion?

I spent much of the novel looking out for the quote that, ‘without God, everything would be permitted,’ which philosophers often reference from it, and was somewhat disappointed to only find out after that this is a misattribution – the line actually came from Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, but it does raise the same concern as Ivan. He fears that men can do what they like without God’s influence, a fear which I have my doubts about. I do not believe there is little reason for atheists to have a conscience without divine authority to instruct them, as there are many other sources of morality, and so all the lack of faith means is that they must carve their own ethics. As a utilitarian, I believe it clear that pleasure is intrinsically valuable, and so the non-religious still have a duty to maximise the wellbeing of others, and others would turn to the universal maxim for a source of moral authority. While this means that there isn’t the punishment of eternal damnation hanging over the head of wrongdoers, duty towards fellow man is surely enough motivation for most people to ease Ivan’s fears. Furthermore, I would argue that many find ways to weaponize religion, or to follow through on malicious intentions just in a slightly different manner to avoid incurring punishment from God – belief and fear of God are simply not enough to keep those who wish to harm others in check; motivation for ethics must relate to the consequences for the outside world rather than fear for oneself.

And so why am I still undecided on whether the Brothers Karamazov is persuasive enough to adopt a more religious outlook? Interestingly, the answer emerges when Ivan is hallucinating – he is diagnosed with a brain fever, and witnesses the devil sit before him, a charming character who engages with him on religion. The devil states that, ‘proofs do not help one to believe, especially material proofs,’ and that, ‘Thomas believed, not because he saw Christ risen, but because he wanted to believe.’ The argument for belief in God for a sense of hope and positivity is demonstrated through the contrast of Ivan and Alyosha by the end of the novel – Ivan is in turmoil, destroyed by his feeling of abandonment in the universe. Conversely, Alyosha ends the novel on a note of optimism – despite all the ills which have befallen those he cares for, his faith keeps him hopeful, and he channels the love he feels from God towards those around him. Dostoyevsky’s point is that even if scepticism is rational, it is worth maintaining belief as without that life would lose much of its meaning. And I can certainly see the merits of this – Mother Theresa is a pretty good example here. Even when she doubted logically whether God could exist, she continued to use him for her motivation for helping the poor, and did a lot of good by doing so. Perhaps this is how more of us should operate – using faith to help love around us, even when the chance of God’s existence seems unlikely.

Image: Isabelle Fischer on Unsplash