The Brothers Karamazov and Evil and the God of Love - Essay Example

s the assignment was due Theodicy There are so many questions regarding God and the existence of evil: Is God willing to prevent evil? Is he able to do so? Then whence is evil? The so-called problem of evil remains the focus for many theological philosophies, which argues against the existence of ‘evil’ and ‘goodness of God’ at relative positions. However, there are little ethical and philosophical assumptions on the stance of ‘God is good’ and ‘existence of evil’ because studying God’s omniscience in this regard is beyond human articulations. The two authors taken for discussion are Fyodor Dostoevsky and John Hick, the two theodicists, who have formulated ideologies on this regard of God and the problem of evil through their books, The Brothers Karamazov and Evil and the God of Love. When comparing the theodicy of Dostoyevsky with Hick, it is evident that though both the authors consent the existence of evil and omniscience of God through their theistic faith, they provide differing views regarding their notion of suffering and evil. Dostoevsky contradicts the soul-making theodicy of Hick, denying suffering as an instrumental tool to divine goodness. However, he articulates that suffering is necessary for human redemption as well as to attain the role of Christ’s atonement and compassion for justifying and combating evil. So, the discussion focuses on Dostoevsky’s approach to theodicy, in relation to god and evil, and his perspectives on suffering with that of Hick’s theodicy and his related viewpoints. Theodicy, in its classical form, is a theological approach which defends the morally perfect goodness and justice of God against the existence of evil. Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov is a philosophical novel set in the backdrop of the nineteenth-century Russia, deeply employing some ethical and theological debates, particularly about God, Free Will, and morality. The theodicy of Dostoevsky can be reflected in the arguments of Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov, the second son of Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov. As stated, the ideology of ‘loving God’ could not be reconciled by Ivan because of the evident sufferings of innocents in the world, particularly children. He argues that if God loves humankind, he would not permit the world to be imbued with evil. If he does so and allows sufferings, he cannot be a ‘loving’ God. According to Dostoevsky, sufferings of innocents, even if it results in whatever goodness, cannot be justified. He condemns the view of accepting human suffering as a means that brings or directs towards goodness in future or in the afterlife. He criticizes this concept on the grounds that the sufferings of innocent children cannot be vindicated in either way, even if it brings better outcomes. In this direction, he defends the ‘goodness of God’ questioning that an omnipotent God could have eliminated such a suffering from the innocent lives, and if not, he could not be an omni-benevolent one in any aspect. This conception of Dostoevsky challenges the Irenaean theodicy of Hick, which mentions that the pains and sufferings of the innocent people are meant by God to act as a tool for producing more good within a person. According to Hick, God is omnipotent and omniscient beyond human understanding and so the process of soul-making could not be perceived rationally by the human senses. He explains this concept through the Creation story in Genesis in a non-literal manner. He states that creation of man was not a onetime event but an on-going process that takes an entire lifetime. God does not create humans as concrete individuals but transformable beings who are constantly shaped through the trials of the world, until the final ‘day’ of creation. In his view, humans are an integral part of God’s creation and the earth is the place where His soul-making process happens. For this process to improve and the humans to attain God’s desired fruition, the worldly sufferings are a necessity. This means the existence of evil in the world is the catalyst that keeps this soul-making process intact. In essence, the world has not still reached the complete creation process and God is in a way creating humanity among the beings using the sufferings and evil as the instruments of his divine destiny. On the other hand, Dostoevsky’s theodicy contradicts this notion mentioning that any theodicy that presents suffering or evil as instrument for positive change cannot be rationalized, regardless of any goodness coming out of it. According to him, the ‘problem of evil’ defends against God’s existence and the conception of this theodicy is laid on the four basic propositions - God is omniscient; God is omnipotent; God is omni-benevolent; and Evil exists. All of these propositions are logically incompatible in one way or the other. For instance, Hick’s theodicy formulation has ignored or denied one of the propositions, particularly the notion that God is omni-benevolent. If ever God is all-loving, he would have not allowed suffering to his own creations. Moreover, it cannot be denied that evil does not exist, because it does and is evident in the world. Hick’s theodicy states that evil and sufferings of today will be made up with higher harmony in the later years or in the afterlife. In that sense, if sufferings are used to attain the higher harmony, then there has to be atonement for the victims through reconciliation with the persecutor. Retribution does not happen instantly and people are not to be blamed for the evil deeds and sufferings of their ancestors as well as it would be unfair to manure one’s suffering for someone else’s harmony. This notion cannot be consented with the sufferings of children in any way. “It is totally incomprehensible why children should suffer, and attain this harmony through their suffering. Why should they serve as the fertilizer for someone’s future harmony?”(Walsh 163). In the novel, Ivan rejects the notion of higher harmony for the sufferings, stating that whatever atonement is provided, the actual sufferings of the innocents in the present world cannot be vindicated in any way. Moreover, he is unable to accept the cruelties towards children and explains that whatever divine harmony is delivered, it does not compensate for the sufferings of the children. From the biblical perspective, for the reconciliation to occur, forgiveness is required. However, forgiveness cannot be given for all the wrongdoings. For instance, a mother cannot forgive the persons who tortured or killed her children. In that direction, Dostoevsky strongly opposes the fact that reconciliation with the persecutor or atonement for the wrongdoer in hell or heaven for their acts does not in any way make up for the sufferings of the children. As Ivan mentions in the chapter ‘Rebellion’, “I need retribution, otherwise I will destroy myself. And retribution not somewhere and sometime in infinity, but here and now, on earth, so that I see it myself” (Dostoevsky 244). Retribution has to be done then and there, on earth, and not somewhere or sometime in infinity when one cannot perceive it in any means. Though Dostoevsky believes in the existence of God, he does not consent to the Hick’s theodicy of soul-making process, in which the God’s plan for humanity is instrumented through injustice and outrageous damage. In the novel, Ivan finds the problem of evil as a result of lack of justice in the world. He attributes this unfair worldly condition to question the existence of God as an omnipotent soul. However, sufferings in the world can never be taken for granted and God, who is considered to be the omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent to his creations is expected to have a sovereign power over everything. In this regard, he demands reasons for God’s creation of man and his intentions in permitting evil or suffering to his own creation. He also insists on a solution for the existence of injustice in the world, stating why an omnipotent God is mute to the struggles of his own children. Hick’s theodicy offers some responses to Ivan’s arguments about sufferings and its worth. Hick lays his belief on Universal salvation, which means all the sufferings are made up in heaven by God. He stresses on suffering as a part of the soul-making process, with heaven being the site for the culmination to this process. According to him, the natural indiscriminate evil of the world is what brings people together with compassion. Moreover, if evil is eliminated from this world, it would be static with no progress. However, the theodicy of Dostoevsky eliminates this view by stating that the progress of today’s world, in the light of evil, is in no way on the good progressive direction. Hick’s theodicy explains the free-will of human beings and the nature in which God has made them thereby giving them the ability to sin. God gave humans the freedom with genuine openness which allows him/her to act freely on his choices. But, at the same time, this does limit God’s omniscience or omnipotence. So, God does not regulate the free choices of humans and if he does, it is a contradiction to his own creation. It would hinder God’s divine intention of creating a world with better humans who willingly form an interpersonal relationship with God, despite their ability to sin. According to Hick, God do not want to create pets or pre-programmed robots that does what he intends to do but he looks for free-willed humans who consciously act on their thoughts and willingly do what God intends them to do. But, opposing this perspective, Schoenig (457) states, “Contrary to God’s commands humans misuse their free-will and thereby cause the suffering of the innocent known as ‘moral evil’”. Since the world is not a completed creation but a place for soul-making, people struggle through their evils and find way towards becoming children of God. This process certainly requires suffering as the only means to discover moral integrity, unselfishness, courage, compassion, love, and reverence of truth. If God could have created the world as a hedonistic paradise to give pleasure to humans, with no hardships, no sins, no sufferings, then there would be no phase for developing fortitude, compassion, courage, or other moral virtues. “By removing suffering from human experience, we lose an invaluable teaching moment, namely, the pedagogically redemptive moment of suffering, a moment tantamount to bringing about a larger good” (Flescher 157). So, the best possible world needs sufferings and hardships in it to fulfill Gods good purpose for creation and to continue the soul-making process in the afterlife. Moreover, God does not have a bookkeeping to compensate all sufferings with proportional pleasures. But it has to be understood with theistic faith that all suffering leads to God’s plan and it is adequately necessary to achieve the infinite bliss that God has preserved for all. Ivan’s view on evils does not justify suffering as a free choice of human in an environment designed by God to facilitate spiritual growth. Instead, he places the foundation of his faith on doubts. When he recites the poem, ‘Grand Inquisitor’, he accuses Christ and His granting of freedom for humans to choose on their free-will. He mentions that this has set a high standard for humans, probably conflicting with their ability to handle their freedom of choice thereby bringing intolerable burden to humanity. Through the poem, Dostoevsky conveys his ideology of suffering and contrasts it with the views of Hick’s theology. He states that suffering should not be judged just because a small group of individuals benefit out of the divine plan it brings forth. But one has to consider the vast sufferings that are inflicted upon the majority of humans, who are too weak to overcome the persistent evil and would have to needlessly suffer because of the divine plan. As Ivan professes in the novel, God’s plan itself is flawed in the sense that it is unjust to majority of humans who are enduring evil for no reason other than benefiting in infinity. His stance rightly states that regardless of the greatness of the promised divine harmony, the suffering endured by the people, particularly the children are never worth the price. Whatever the results, the divine plan can bright to the world; it could not be adequately compensated for the human pain in enduring those sufferings. Though both the authors place their stance on their theistic faith, they posit their notion of suffering and evil relating to goodness or redemption at different degrees and viewpoints. Dostoevsky denies suffering to be related to future goodness but accepts the concept of redemption and atonement to some extent. Similarly, both the authors make their strong opinion on this issue of suffering by focusing on compassion towards fellow beings as well as continually stress on the need for justifying and combating evil through any means. Works cited: Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2002, Print. Flescher, Andrew Michael. Moral Evil. Georgetown University Press. 2013, Print. Schoenig, Richard. “The Free Will Theodicy.” Religious Studies, 34.4 (1998): 457-470. Walsh, Harry Hill. “The Book of Job and the Dialectic of Theodicy in ‘The Brothers Karamazov’.” The South Central Bulletin, 37.4 (1977): 161-167. Read More