"More Satisfying Than the Solutions of Man": Dostoevsky's Answer to the Problem of Evil
The problem of evil is an ancient one within the Christian tradition, and some of the most famous theologians have engaged it, including Augustine and Aquinas. They show that, on an intellectual level, the problem of evil does not constitute a real objection to God. Through the character of Ivan in The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky focuses on the existential dimension of the problem of evil, seen in the suffering of children. Ivan even presents the key to the question—the kiss Christ gives the Grand Inquisitor—but he himself remains unconvinced, because he has not found the answer on the right grounds. An existential problem demands an existential answer, not an intellectual or theological one, and God gave it completely in Christ Crucified.
Augustine grappled with evil during his conversion, relating his conclusion in The Confessions: "Everything that exists is good, then; and so evil, the source of which I was seeking, cannot be a substance, because if it were, it would be good."[1] This point he makes even more clearly in The City of God: "[N]o nature at all is evil, and this is a name for nothing but the want of good."[2] Similarly, the human will "is made evil by nothing else than defection from God."[3]Evil, for Augustine, is nonbeing, an absence, a privation, even as it remains a difficulty, especially for an unbeliever considering conversion, like he once was.
Aquinas adopted many of Augustine's reflections into his own response to the problem of evil. He presented the argument, one of only two objections against God's existence that he entertains in the Summa: "It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word 'God' means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist."[4] Aquinas then responded, "As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): 'Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.' This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good."[5] Aquinas brings in another aspect of Augustine's thinking, that of God's power to work everything "for good with those who love him."[6] Augustine and Aquinas show that there is no logical contradiction between the existence of evil and that of God. However, evil still has causal power. It may be nonbeing, but it does not feel like it. The problem of evil may have been answered, but it has not been defeated. Its terrifying strength lies beyond what theologians can touch.
This indicates that the problem exists on two levels: intellectual and existential. The former is the argument as Aquinas presents it, and that he, Augustine, and other theologians have responded to adequately. However, there remains the existential problem of evil: the real-world confrontation with unjust, meaningless, inescapable suffering. This distinction is precisely what Dostoevsky unpacks in the conversation between Ivan and Alyosha surrounding the Grand Inquisitor story. Ivan's argument concerns unjust evil. He nuanced his "atheism," explaining, "It is not God that I don't accept—understand that—it's His creation, His world that I reject."[7] In a certain sense, Ivan is not an atheist. He says that he accepts God. However, he faces a chasm between his intellectual knowledge of God and the reality that he confronts on the streets and in the newspaper. He later refers to his "childlike faith," and demonstrates knowledge of the Final Judgement.[8] However, he remains unconvinced because this response does not meet his challenge on the appropriate level. He challenges Alyosha's faith on existential grounds, not intellectual ones. The Church's teachings on eschatology and divine justice are intellectual, not existential. So, Ivan remains unconvinced.
He then turned to the heart of his case: the suffering of children. With his sense of justice, he accepts the suffering of adults: they have done evil, and so they suffer evil.[9] After relating horrifying stories to drive home his point, he claims, "I want to see the lion lying down with the lamb with my own eyes, and the murdered rising up and embracing their murderers. I want to be here when everyone suddenly finds out the why and the wherefore of everything. This is the desire on which all religions on earth are based, and I am a believer. But then, what about the children?"[10] By echoing Isaiah 11, he adds his knowledge of Scripture to that of Church teaching, and expresses desire for such promises to prove true. He finally throws down the gauntlet:
“Is there in all the world a single being who could forgive and has the right to do so? I don't want harmony; for the love of humankind, I don't want it. I would rather that suffering were not avenged. I would prefer to keep my suffering unavenged and my abhorrence unplacated, even at the risk of being wrong. Besides, the price of harmony has been set too high, we can't afford the entrance fee. . . . It's not that I don't accept God, Alyosha; I'm just, with the utmost respect, handing Him back my ticket.”[11]
He is not challenging Alyosha with the intellectual problem of evil, or even questioning the existence of God. If God did not exist, then the blood of the innocent would not be crying out for justice.[12] The entire world, including all evil, would be a cruel joke or the result of chance, with no one ultimately responsible. But the very existence of Ivan's passionate sense of justice indicates the existence of God. God must exist for Ivan to be able to challenge him. By making this case, Ivan evades the intellectual problem of evil and presents the existential problem in stark and horrifying situations—the dimension not addressed by the solutions of theologians.
Alyosha then broke in, saying, "[Y]ou asked just now: 'Is there in all the world any single being who could forgive and who has the right to do so?' But there is such a being, and He can forgive everything, He can forgive everyone for everything, because He Himself shed His innocent blood for everyone and for everything."[13] He intuits correctly that Christ would be the one person that could foil Ivan's challenge as an innocent, self-sacrificing victim who forgave the guilty from His Cross. Ivan responded, "Ah, this 'only one without sin', who has shed his blood! No, I haven't forgotten about Him; on the contrary, I've been wondering all this time why you hadn't brought Him up."[14] He has indeed considered Christ and His relevance to this challenge. The brothers recognize the stakes of the question. Ivan has presented the strongest possible case with the existential aspect of evil, but Christ could undermine it completely. The question remains whether or not He does—a question Ivan entertains with his story.
Christ returns to sixteenth-century Seville, again meeting the crowds and healing, but without saying anything besides what is recorded in the Gospels.[15] Christ is arrested by the Grand Inquisitor, who confronts Christ with the desert temptations He rejected.[16] The Inquisitor did not make such a mistake: "We have improved upon your creation and founded it instead on miracle, mystery, and authority."[17] He finally challenges Christ, saying, "[W]e who have, for their own happiness, taken upon ourselves their sins, we shall stand before You and say, 'Judge us if You can and if You dare.' . . . I was ready to join Your chosen ones, to unite with the strong and mighty ones who yearn 'to make up their number'. But I came to my senses and did not wish to serve insanity."[18] Alyosha interrupts, claiming the story is in fact praising Christ.[19] After some discussion, Ivan finally ends his story:
“When the Inquisitor stops speaking, he waits a little while for the prisoner to answer him. He finds His silence disconcerting. He has seen the captive listening all the while quietly and attentively, looking him straight in the eye, and apparently not wishing to respond. . . . But He suddenly approaches the old man in silence and calmly kisses him on his bloodless ninety-year-old lips. That is His only response. The old man shudders. His lips quiver; he goes to the door of the cell, opens it, and says, 'Go and don't come back any more...never...never, never, never!' And he releases Him into the dark backstreets of the city.”[20]
When Alyosha asks about the Inquisitor, Ivan answered, "The kiss sears his heart, but he doesn't let go of his Idea."[21]
This is the response Ivan imagined. While Ivan expressed acceptance of God and demonstrated knowledge of Scripture and Church teaching, the "Idea" of the Inquisitor is nothing less than the complete remaking of Christianity such that the existential challenge of faith is no longer present. An existential question like Ivan's presentation of evil can only be adequately met by an existential response, one that Ivan has never received. This response could only come from Christ, the innocent yet merciful victim. This forms the heart of Scripture's response to the problem of evil. When Job challenged God with his undeserved suffering, God's response seems cold: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?"[22] In God's longest speech in the entire Old Testament, He reveals His transcendent, providential care for the entire created order. Job finally replies, "I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes."[23] Job considered himself answered because he saw God, not because he heard God's teaching; these parallel the existential level and the intellectual level, respectively. The existential problem of evil stems from encounters with evil, so the problem is solved through encounters with good—seeing God.
Since the Old Testament is ever pointing to the New, the ultimate encounter comes with Christ Crucified. God responded partially in Job, but completely in the Cross—the most unjust condemnation of the most innocent man, culminating in the most horrifying punishment. "Sin knew no sin" cried out from the Cross, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."[24]He bore the full existential weight of evil, but when He rose, he proclaimed the word "peace."[25]The kiss of Christ that Ivan describes as the end of the story is the kiss of awoundedChrist, the Christ that invited Thomas to put his fingers in the nail-marks and his hand in His side.[26]The intellectual problem of evil can be answered by theology, but nothing can answer the existential problem of evil besides encounter. However, Ivan has not had this encounter, so his story of the Grand Inquisitor can only end with a man shaken but still unchanged.
[1] Augustine, The Confessions, trans. Maria Boulding, ed. David Vincent Meconi (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012), 182.
[2] Augustine, The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods (New York: The Modern Library, 1950), 365.
[3] Ibid., 388.
[4] Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologiæ of St. Thomas Aquinas, second and revised edition, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: London, Burns, Oates and Washbourne, 1920), New Advent, 2017, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3, Ia, q. 2, a. 3.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Romans 8:28 (RSVCE).
[7] Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Karamazov Brothers, trans. Ignat Avsey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 295.
[8] Ibid., 295.
[9] Ibid., 298.
[10] Ibid., 306.
[11] Ibid., 307-08.
[12] Genesis 4:10 (RSVCE).
[13] Dostoevsky, 308.
[14] Ibid., 308.
[15] Ibid., 312.
[16] Ibid., 317.
[17] Ibid., 322.
[18] Ibid., 326.
[19] Ibid., 326, 328.
[20] Ibid., 329.
[21] Ibid., 329.
[22] Job 38:4 (RSVCE).
[23] Job 42:5-6.
[24] 2 Corinthians 5:21; Luke 23:34.
[25] John 20:19.
[26] John 20:27.
