Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.

htm

PHL 212
Instructor: Dr. Bob Zunjic

FYODOR
DOSTOEVSKY
Syllabi
Selections from
Introduction
to Philosophy The Brothers
Critical
Karamazov (1880)
Thinking
Logic An Outline
Ancient
Philosophy
Ethics The Brothers Karamazov is perhaps the greatest philosophical novel of all time. It is the last piece
Idea of Dostoevsky managed to finish and publish before his sudden death in January of 1881. On the surface
Modernity it is a strange life story of the family Karamazov (Fyodor - sensualist father, Dmitri - violent eldest
Modern son, Ivan - intellectual second brother, Alyosha - gentle youngest brother, and Smerdyakov - immoral
Philosophy half-brother). In its core, however, the novel advances some complex moral and philosophical
arguments about human existence in general. By contrasting the father and his elder sons, on the one
Aesthetics hand, with the young Alyosa, on the other, Dostoevsky wanted to demonstrate the spiritual emptiness
Existentialism of atheism, crude materialism and scientistic arrogance of his time. While not every reader may feel
The Balkans: comfortable in accepting Dostoevsky's fervor for Christian Orthodoxy as the remedy for the illnesses
Past and he is depicting with an incredible sensitivity toward the ambiguities of human condition there is no
Present doubt that his powerful portrayal of these representative characters and their dilemmas possesses
universal relevance. The section about the existing evil raises many disturbing issues about God and
our tendency to reconcile with the suffering of the innocent or even to justify it.
Outlines This outline covers the fourth chapter of the fifth book of the Brothers Karamazov.

Value of
Philosophy
THE PROBLEM OF JUSTIFICATION
Euthyphro
Republic
How to Defend God in View of the Existing Evil?
Metaphysics
A1-2 A Dialogue Between Two Karamazovs:
Physics A, B
Nicomachean
Alyosha: A devout Christian monk.
Ethics
Ivan: A philosophical agnostic.
Poetics
Sermon on
the Mount
Dedicatory First Problem: The Existence of God
Letter
Meditation I Question 1: Does God Exist? What is Ivan's answer?
Meditation II There are several possible positions with regard to the
Meditations existence of God:
III-VI
Leviathan
1. Theist: 'I believe that God exists.'
Standard of
(This is the conviction of Alyosha who stakes out his whole
Taste
life on that belief.)
Prolegomena
to Any Future

1 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

Metaphysics 2. Atheist: 'I believe that God does not exist.'

Preamble (Notice that atheism is also a kind of belief. Initially Ivan
Groundwork simply denied the existence of God but afterwards recanted
of the his statement, which is more in keeping with agnosticism.)
Metaphysic Note: Ivan notes that those who do not believe in God but strive to
of Morals accomplish "the transformation of all humanity on a new pattern" turn the
religious idea of salvation inside out. In other words anarchism and
Critique of
socialism are just a reversed glove of Christian Kingdom of Heaven.
Judgment
3. Pantheist: 'I think that God resides everywhere - he is
Analytic of
indistinguishable from Nature.' (Some Native Americans
the Sublime
have beliefs that come very close to pantheism.)
Deduction of
Taste 4. Deist: 'I believe that there is a Supreme Mind or a Principle
Utilitarianism indifferent to human exploits.'
Fear and (Some people do not believe in a personal God but allow
Trembling that there is something higher out there. Voltaire was one
Concluding famous deist.)
Unscientific 5. Nihilist: 'There is no hereafter and what is here is also an illusion.'
Postscript 6. Agnostic: 'I don't know whether God exists or not; this question could
The Brothers not be rationally decided.'
Karamazov (This appears to be the true position of Ivan Karamazov.)
Twilight of Position Content
the Idols
Theism Asserts the existence of God.
Beyond
Good and Pantheism Identifies God with the world.
Evil Claims that there is an Intellect behind the
Being And Deism
universe.
Nothingness Atheism Denies the existence of God.
Existentialism
Is a Denies the existence of both the world and
Nihilism
Humanism God.
Existentialism Asserts the inconclusiveness of all answers
Agnosticism
Is a about God.
Humanism2 Doubts: For Alyosha, the ensuing discussion about the existence of
God is very disturbing - at best it can yield only what he
already believes - that God exists.
For Ivan, it is an open intellectual game which at worst can
Homepage only estrange him from his brother. He himself is not much
concerned for the outcome because his own existence
seems to be rendered meaningless either way. This creates
the impression Ivan is a cynic, but he is not. He is more
concerned for the consistency and purity of moral
principles.
"The Old Sinner": The allusion is to Voltaire (1694-1778), French philosopher
of the Enlightenment, who was at one a deist and a man of
mundane pleasures. He did not believe that morality in the
masses could be sustained without relying on something
beyond us (= heteronomous morality). Therefore he used
to say that "if there were no God, he would have to be
invented" ("Si'l ne existait pas Dieu, il faudrer il inventer",
Epitre a l'Auteur du Livre des Trois Imposteurs, 10

2 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

November 1770). But he himself enjoyed life to the fullest.

Why? Why do we need a God?
Various Answers:
To be moral? To keep people in check? To be hopeful?
Note: B. Brecht suggests the following test: Ask yourself would you
change anything in your conduct if there were a God! If you would, you
need a God. Those who ground morality on religion must conclude that
everything is permitted if God did not exist. Dostoevsky was the first to
formulate this frightening statement through Ivan. However, most recent
studies show that there are no significant differences in moral intuitions
between the believers and non-believers (cf. P. Singer, M. Hauser). One
can argue with Lacan that if there were a God then everything would be
permissible to him.
Creation: Voltaire amended the statement from Genesis (1,26-7)
about the creation of man in the image of God by adding
that man promptly returned the compliment. Which evens
the score and settles the issue. Not only that men should
have invented God - they have actually invented him in
response to the great divine creation.
The same reasoning could be used to explain the
relationship between man and the Devil - and it was already
applied in that manner.
Anthropomorphism or Ivan does not tackle the question who has created who,
Theomorhism God man in his own likeness or man God by over-blowing
his own image? In the final analysis it really does not
matter. If the former, we should certainly believe in God. If
the latter, we need a God and therefore we should believe
in him as if he really exists.
Pragmatic Stance There is no way that we can resolve the matter by using our
limited human mind. Precisely because it is impossible to
rationally decide the issue of the original authorship it
makes sense either to simply accept or reject the existence
of God or to entertain alternately both views.
Advice This is the reason why Ivan advises Alyosha in the
following manner:
"Never think whether God exists or not!"
"I can't expect to understand about God." "All such
questions are utterly inappropriate for a mind created
with an idea of only three dimensions."
Marvel: No matter whether God exists or not the fact is that the
idea of God exists. For a cynic, the sheer existence of this
idea is a greater miracle than the marvel of possible God's
existence. For it is amazing that "such a vicious and savage
creature as man" could have recognized the necessity of
such a lofty idea. It does a great credit to man (who
otherwise does not deserve much admiration). The most
vicious animal has developed the idea of the most sublime
being. Ivan does not want to take away this credit from
man by considering the possibility (espoused by many
theologians) that God has implanted the idea of Himself in
man (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas and Descartes).

3 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

Animals not Lack idea of

vicious. God.
Humans Possess idea
vicious. of God.

Denial Revisited: Recogniziong the existence of the idea, Ivan begins his
reasoning by reformulating his previous outright denial of
God:
(a) "Perhaps I too accept God."

Provisional Assent: For the sake of an argument ("Only fancy!"), Ivan can both
believe that God was invented and accept the idea that He
now exists. In a way, if we accept God we in fact affirm the
contention that "man has actually invented God".
Choice: But Ivan does not want to bother himself with the question
of priority: who created whom, God man or man God. It
does not change anything in his argument about the actual
state of affairs that is so telling about the Creator of the
world. Even less he seeks to determine the nature of God.
Our abilities are not up to that task.
Ignoramus: we do not
know:
Whether God exists.
What is his Nature.
Who has created whom.

Second Problem: "What Manner of Man I am?"

With our limited abilities we cannot decide the question of

God's existence. But our human powers suffice to
reflectively determine who we are, what do we believe and
what can we know. Ivan wants to explicate his own nature:
what does he believe and what does he hope for. This is
possible to figure out independent from the issue whether
God exists and is relevant for the issue of evil.
Essential Nature: For Ivan, the main characteristic of man is to seek
understanding and to be able to attain it within the confines
of his earthly (limited) mind. Thus if God is accepted by
Ivan He is accepted the way human understanding accepts
something. This qualification is indicated by the expression
"Euclidian mind".
Euclidian Mind: The expression was coined by Voltaire to denote the way
human reason works or better to say the limits within which
human understanding operates ("the impotent and infinitely
small Euclidian mind of man"). Human mind cannot
comprehend that some objects are not in space with 3
dimensions, that two objects occupy the same spot at the

4 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

same time, that parallel lines meet, that things happen

without any reason, that consequences follow without being
caused.
Euclid: Note: Euclid (325-265BC?) was a Greek mathematician who has
systematized the whole geometrical knowledge of his time in 13 books
of the Elements. At the beginning he introduced 5 common logical
notions and 5 specific geometric postulates that define our understanding
of magnitudes and planes. The fifth geometrical postulate states in a
rather cumbersome way the axiom of parallel lines: "If a straight line
falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side
less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely,
meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles."
In other words, if these angles are not "less than two right angles" these
lines will never meet. The impossibility to prove this postulate led
Nicolai Lobatchevsky (1792-1829) to the conclusion that non-Euclidian
geometry is as "true" (valid) as Euclidean.
Restrictions: As a man I can reason only in the following way:
(1) If God exists and if He did create the world, then He
created it according to the geometry of Euclid. This
geometry includes both the assumption of three dimensions
and the axiom about parallel lines that is constitutive for the
visible world. How does Ivan know that God must have
created the world according to the axioms of Euclidean
geometry? Because his mind operates in that manner and it
has been presumably created by God.
Note: This is a rationalist presumption against those who place God
above commonsense logic and against those who propound a
non-Euclidian geometry as the geometry of the universe. It appears that
the world we see is set up in accordance with the geometry of Euclid
and this constitution inevitably defines the framework for any discussion
and understanding of the world.

(2) If God has created the world, He also created the

human mind with the conception of only three dimensions
of space. This means that for human mind two parallel lines
can never meet since that intuition is essential for our
intellect - any other reasoning is not valid on this planet.
Note: Of course, if we put two parallel lines on a sphere they will meet,
but this could be explained by means of the same Euclidean geometry.
What we cannot conceive and accept is that a non-Euclidian geometry
holds for the world that we see. It can only apply to non-intuitive and
non-worldly entities beyond our comprehension and rational abilities.
Human This Logical Euclidean
Mind=> World Reasoning Geometry
Divine Beyond Non-intuitive Non-Euclidean
Mind=> the World reasoning Geometry
Ignoramus: Since we cannot understand what is beyond us it is
reasonable not to raise questions about God's existence and
his nature. The question of God is not a question of this
world, not the question that human intellect can solve. It
operates within Aristotelian logic and visualizes world in
keeping with the principles of Euclidean space. But it is not
necessary to place God somewhere in space in order to

5 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

accept Him. God does not have three or any finite number
of dimensions.

Ivan's Decision: Since we cannot know or understand God we should simply

accept or reject him on faith. Ivan decides to accept God
precisely because we cannot determine whether he was
created by man or the other way round, what is His nature
and whether He exists. It makes sense to make a leap of
faith in the absence of knowledge. ("I accept God
simply.").

Third Problem: What does it mean to accept God?

The Meaning of Since I cannot understand anything about God, and since
Acceptance: you insist that God has created this world, I accept this
assertion at least tentatively - 'since you say so', that is, for
the sake of argument. "And so I accept God and am glad
to."

But to "accept God" means much more than to accept that

God exists and that He has created the world. This
acceptance obviously entails a whole series of derived
tenets.

(a) Wisdom: "I accept His wisdom": I accept that God has created the
world (wisely).
(b) Teleology: I accept "His purpose". As a good artisan God had an idea
while creating the world and He has set a certain purpose
for the world.
Note: "I believe in the underlying order and the meaning of life." We do
not see always the manifestations of that wisdom and purpose. But we
need to presume that there is an invisible order underneath the visible
disorder, that there is a hidden sense in what now seems to be devoid of
any meaning.
(c) Eschatology: Not only there is an order and meaning in the world; in the
world's finale everything will shine in the true perfection of
the 'eternal harmony': "I believe in the eternal harmony in
which they say we shall one day be blended." This will be
the final point in history. Hence Ivan echoes the credo from
the Gospel of John: "I believe in the Word to which the
universe is striving, and Which Itself was 'with God', and
Which Itself is God and so on, and so on, to infinity."
Components By "accepting God" Ivan accepts all crucial moments of the
great Christian story:
(1) God exists. EXISTENCE
(2) God has created
CREATION
the world.

6 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

(3) God has created

the world wisely and WISDOM
nicely.
(4) God has supplied a
TELEOLOGY
purpose for the world.
(5) God provides
order to the world and
SIGNIFICATION
the meaning to our
lives.
(6) God leads the
world to its finale that
ESCHATOLOGY
will result in complete
atonement.

All 6 components are constitutive for the belief in Christian

God. However, the most decisive component of the story is
(6), that there is a final moment at "the end of time", when
everything will merge into an "eternal harmony".
Disengagement After accepting the whole package in accepting God Ivan
all of a sudden qualifies his acceptance by rejecting some
components. He cannot accept the world as it is (5) nor is
he ready to accept the redemption of the world (6) although
he does not deny that God exists (1), that he has created
world (2), and that its final moment will come to pass under
God's guidance (6).

"It's not that I do not accept God, it's the world erected by
Him I don't and cannot accept."

"But I don't accept it, I won't accept it."

Rejection: Ivan does not see the order and the meaning in the existing
world. He therefore finds (5) to be at odds with the idea of
God and the constitution of his Euclidean mind. The fix at
the end of time is unacceptable on moral grounds - it goes
against Ivan's moral sense. In addition, since the existing
world contains evil, suffering and injustices it is
incompatible with the idea of a good and wise God which in
turn undermines (3).

Ivan cannot accept these three tenets anymore than he can

assent that parallel lines meet. In other words, he does not
accept anything pertaining to this Euclidian world that is
not in conformity with the geometry of Euclid (earthly logic
and the principles of justice). If he sees that things defy
logic and justice he will refuse to believe his eyes for the
sake of his reason and sanity.
Analogy Even if parallel lines do meet and I see it myself I will not
accept that fact. By the same token, even if eternal
harmony comes to pass I will not accept the justification of

7 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

suffering it entails.
Phenomenon Attitude
Parallel lines meet Incomprehensible
Suffering exists Infamy / Absurdity
Sufferings redeemed Unacceptable
Non-Acceptance Ivan does not see the wisdom of creation asserted in (3).
He does not understand the order and the meaning asserted
in (5).
And he rejects the announcement that the world will be
redeemed in 'eternal harmony' (6).
For reasons that are to become clear shortly, these claims in
Ivan's mind cannot be reconciled with the way how we
humans accept something as factual, logical and moral.
Tenet Rejection
(3) Logical Reason
(5) Factual Reason
(6) Moral Reason

Fourth Problem: How to Love a Fellow Man?

Ivan's Difficulty: Ivan: "I could never understand how one can love one's
neighbor."

Note: Ivan's statement is a reference to the biblical command: "Love

your neighbor!" (Lev. 19:18) Ivan Karamazov takes it in its OT meaning
as pertaining to those who are close to us as members of our family,
social group or ethnicity. In contrast, Jesus of Nazareth urges his
disciples to extend the use of the expression 'neighbor' so that it applies
universally to any fellow man who deserves love simply as human being
(i.e. to every man).
Impossible Love: 1. Concrete individuals close to us are physically
repugnant. One sees the ugliness of human race vividly
present in those who are around us.

2. People we know do things that make love for them

impossible. By their acts they demonstrate that humans do
not deserve to be loved.
Counter-Argument: Alyosha: "But yet there's a great deal of love in mankind,
and almost Christ-like love."
Refutation of CA: 1. Particular acts of practical love and compassion are in
fact acts of self-laceration, duty or penance.

2. One can love mankind "in the abstract, or even at a

distance". But we can espouse abstract humanism only if
we forget what real people do. Once we see them as they
are all love is gone.

3. A Christ-like love for (all men) is a miracle impossible on

8 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

earth.
Disconnect Note: Ivan reverses the reasoning from the Gospel of John: If you do not
love your brother whom you can see on a daily basis how can you claim
you love God whom you cannot see?
Ivan responds: I cannot love my brother precisely because I see how he
looks and what he does. This is an impediment rather than a stepping
stone for loving God.

Fifth Problem: How to empathize with the Suffering of others?

Limits of Suffering is very real, but men by rule do not recognize it

Compassion: and even less empathize with it.

1) Another (man) can never really know how much I suffer,

because he is another man and not I.

2) A man is rarely ready to admit another man's suffering

because he is at best indifferent or (more often) does not
like others.
Kinds of Suffering: There are basically three types of suffering:
(a) Accidental suffering (like hunger, decease or
earthquake). Although it negates humanity in us it is mostly
caused by misfortune or objective factors (natural evil).

(b) Deliberate suffering for an idea. It is sustained for the

sake of a noble cause (heros and martyrs).

(c) Suffering of the innocent (children). Undeservedly

inflicted by others (moral evil).
Motive: People are typically ready to recognize only suffering (a),
very rarely (b), and even less (c). But Ivan focuses
preciesly on (c). He is fond of collecting facts that
graphically illustrate the variety of pain and suffering
inflicted by humans on children. Why does he, almost
sadistically, list so many examples of (c)? Why Ivan brings
up these horrific stories? Is he a sick person who
pathologically enjoys retelling atrocities and tortures?
The Case: No. He is not a sociopath. He is not a misanthrope either.
By collecting examples of senseless and undeserved
suffering Ivan is making a case against humanity, the world
and God. And even though, he is making a case against
humanity, he contends, he is doing this "from love for
humanity".

Note: This apparent contradiction is the consequence of a discrepancy

between the existing type of humanity and the one Ivan wants to see in
the world. The existing humanity exposes children to many forms of evil
and suffering, the one Ivan has in mind would go by the principle that
children must not be blamed for possible mistakes or failures of their
parents and therefore never exposed to suffering.

9 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

Reducing the Previous writers (notably Voltaire) drew up comprehensive

Scope: lists of natural disasters and human crimes in order to
undermine the idea that this world is good and that we have
reason to be optimistic. Ivan is more selective. By focusing
only on one segment of evil (the third kind of suffering
from the above list) Ivan weakens quantitatively the case
against the world, because children are only a portion of the
whole human race. But this reduction makes the point
qualitatively stronger, because children are entirely
innocent.
Different Species In contrast to the grown-up people who are both physically
and morally disgusting, children (1) could be loved even at
close quarters (they are not physically ugly), and (2) they
have not done anything wrong and are not guilty
(metaphorically: they have not eaten "the apple").
Principle of Justice The innocent must not suffer for another's sin, and
especially such innocent as children!

The grown-up people have received a kind of compensation

(knowledge and experience) for their suffering, or better to
say, they are not any longer innocent, so let them pay the
price.
Note: Ivan is willing to accept the doctrine of original sin so far as it
applies to adults.
Exemption The theory of original sin is not applicable to children. The
reasoning that all should suffer is "of the other world" and
"is incomprehensible for the heart of man here on earth".
The principle of solidarity in sin or retribution must not
involve children!
Bestial Cruelty Children must not be exposed to human cruelty, let alone to
the worst forms of "bestial cruelty". This latter phrase is in
fact an insult to the beasts because they do not artistically
torture and do not take pleasure in torturing their prey.
Animals attack humans only in defense or for food. In
contrast, humans very often savagely beat animals and take
pleasure in inflicting pain to them.
Man = Devil Given man's proven ability to invent very refined methods
of cruelty one can claim that the devil is just a
self-projection of the dark side of man or even a summation
of his evil. If it is a projection of something that something
must be already inside: "in every man, of course, a demon
lies hidden - the demon of rage, the demon of lustful heat at
the screams of the tortured victim, the demon of
lawlessness let off the chain, the demon of deceases that
follow on vice." In this sense Ivan claims that man has
created the devil "in his own image and likeness".
Man = God Alyosa retorts that, based on the factuality of good deeds,
one can also contend that man has created God in his own
image and likeness. Hence God must be good because man
is good. But Ivan thinks that human vices and crimes by far

10 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

outweigh the good sides of man. Therefore whoever the

creator is (man or God), he could not be the paragon of
goodness. If God was created as a projection of man's
characteristics he could not be a very impressive being.
"Yours must be a fine God, if man created Him in His
image and likeness."

Sixth Problem: How to accept the World?

Difficulty: Ivan does not accept that the world makes sense (that it is
meaningful). On the contrary, he is convinced that the
world is deprived of sense (= absurd). Therefore he does
not want to accept it although it has been created by God
and obviously exists. He also renounces the claim that what
we see could have any reasonable purpose. Finally he
rejects the idea that an eternal harmony should bring
atonement to such a world. The world as it is cannot be and
should not be atoned or redeemed.
Reasons Consequently, Ivan does not accept this "world =
arrangement" as having the underlying order on factual
grounds, he does not accept its "meaning" and its "puprose"
on logical grounds and he does not accept its alleged
redeeming finale on moral grounds.
Contradiction By saying "I accept God" Ivan said 'yes' to the 6
components of the story: (1) Existence, (2) Creation, (3)
Wisdom, (4) Order, Meaning, (5) Purpose, and (6)
Harmony. Now he says "I do not accept" (the world, its
arrangement and the final harmony). Is this a contradiction?
Not exactly, because Ivan's initial acceptance and his
subsequent denial have a slightly different meaning.
I believe God exists, he has
"I
created the world, he orders it
accept"
and he leads the world toward its
=
final harmony.
I think the world does not have a
"I do not proper meaning, I disagree how
accept" its purpose unfolds and I do not
= want the world to merge in a
harmony after all.
Note: Of course, this raises the question how can one accept the Creator
without accepting His creation, order and purpose? The crux of a
believer's position is that he should accept not only article 1 of the creed
but also those stated in 2 through 6. A believer must accept not only that
God has created the world but also that He has done it wisely, with a
purpose, by providing order and direction to our lives and ultimately by
securing the final resolution for all discrepancies and tensions. By
rejecting to accept personally what he accepts doctrinally Ivan in fact
undermines his initial acceptance. (Therefore the word "accept" is being
used equivocally.) The series 1 through 6 is a package. So, by not
accepting some of the statements Ivan ultimately denies his assent to God
whom he has verbally accepted.

11 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

Question 2: "Do you understand why this infamy must be and is

permitted?"
Infamy: This is a reference to the Christian story as a whole but
most specifically to the fact that suffering and evil exist
despite divine origin of the world. The expression was used
by Voltaire to denote both the fact that the innocent suffer
and human readiness to accept this arrangement of the
world under different excuses. Voltaire's answer to that
position was in general: "Crash the infamy!" (That is to say,
reject the idea of perfection and renounce any justification;
the only meaningful attitude is to act within the confines of
our own abilities - as Voltaire's Candide says: "Let us look
to our welfare; go into the garden and do our own work.")
Note: Infamy is a wrong reputation (notoriety for bad reasons).
Coping with evil The problem entailed by the presence of evil in the world is
of a general kind and cannot be limited just to the way how
Christianity justifies evil, miseries and misfortunes. We use
different patterns of justification to cope with the world:
- Evil is just a fragment of an overall good world.
- Without evil we would not be able to appreciate good.
- We do not know why evil is necessary (or even good).
God knows.
Instrumental All too often we inflict pain or suffering in order to achieve
Rationality: our goals. No objection to this so long as it is a self-chosen
and self-inflicted suffering. But we expose other people to
suffering without their consent. Except for arbitrary acts of
torture we regard these actions as a means for some ends
that should redeem the inflicted pain. This type of conduct
is an example of instrumental rationality or teleological
reasoning ("necessary costs", "unavoidable consequences",
"co-lateral damage"). It is a kind of necessity we accept for
the sake of something higher, more important or universal.
God, if He exists, allows us to reason and act in this way.
But from a moral point of view it is infamous to take others
as a means and to claim that ends justify the means.
Moral Stance: Instrumentalization of the other is immoral as such. No
matter whether we appeal to their dedication or simply
manipulate them. Morally the most abominable abuse is
certainly the sacrifice of other people without their consent.
In that case we do not ask others to let themselves
sacrificed. We just sacrifice them. Reagrdless how
important and great that good might be for the sake of
which men require the sacrifice of others or simply use
their lives - it is morally unacceptable to proceed according
to such a reasoning. It is especially problematic to sacrifice
the innocent. When we do that we typically apply some of
the following schemes of justifiucattion:

12 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

Refusal of Deed Means End

Relativization
for the
Small Big
sake of
for the
Low High
sake of
for the
Part Whole
sake of
for the
Individual Universal
sake of
for the
Necessity Revelation
sake of
for the
Fragment Context
sake of
for the
Evil Good
sake of
for the
Colateral Main
sake of
for the
Present Future
sake of

Ivan rejects all means-end, present-future, small-big,

low-high or individual-universal relations that are
supposeed to portray the sacrifice of the left members of
these pairs as something else from what it is - a crime,
violence, an immoral act! Assuming, of course, that it is not
voluntary.
Requirements If the sacrifice is a self-sacrifice it could be morally
commendable. But even then some conditions must be met.
For instance, that those who have sacrificed themselves be
allowed to see the outcome either during their lifetime or
after. If I am not alive to see the result of my sacrifice I
may be reduced to a sheer means for something else. What
is there for me in that future if I am dead? Therefore the
minimal requirement for moral justification is to provide the
opportunity for those who have lost their lives to assure
themselves that it was worthy of sacrifice. An indefinite
postponement of the outcome is tantamount to a deception.
By the same token, Ivan does not accept that his sufferings
"manure the soil of the future harmony for somebody else"
just like that - without giving anything in return to the
sacrificed.

Seventh Problem: Why is there Evil?

13 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

Question 3: Why should evil have happened in the first place? Does the
fact that there is evil mean that God was not willing or not
powerful enough to do something with it in general?
What is the purpose of so manifold suffering in the world?
Absurdity: Hard to say, - for Ivan, it is just an absurdity - but "this
humiliating absurdity of human contradictions" appears to
be constitutive for this world. "Let me tell you, novice, that
the absurd is only too necessary on earth. The world stands
on absurdities, and perhaps, nothing would have come to
pass in it without them." It does not make sense to find evil
in the world created by a good God, even less to see the
innocent suffer. It is absurd both to have a crime committed
and the perpetrator afterwards punished and finally
redeemed. It is absurd that a monk asks for execution,
"but" this particular absurdity (inconsistent with Christian
attitude) is consistent with the absurdity of the whole that is
allegedly wisely ordered and still includes evil, that is
guided by a purpose and still allows the suffering of the
innocent.
Condition: Some say suffering and pain are neccesary in order that
humans could distinguish between good and evil and then
freely choose between the two.
Maybe. But if the occurence of suffering is a condition for
the knowledge of what is right and wrong (for otherwise
man "could not have known good and evil"), then the
answer is:

(a) This is a diabolical condition. Why do we need to know

the difference between good and wrong "when it costs so
much"? And just how much does it cost? Is the freedom of
choice worth of this ever mounting cost or is it rather
compromised by it? The cost-benefit analysis does not
speak unambiguously in favor of such a knowledge. Would
it be preferable not to have the freedom of evildoing at all?
Why we were not given only good?

Allowance: If one says that suffering is a necessary consequence of the

original sin, because men "have eaten the apple", Ivan is
ready to agree. Grown ups have inherited the sinfulness of
their ancestors (the first couple). Their sufferings are thus
(religiously speaking) deserved: Through the original sin the
grown ups have clearly opted for freedom over the safety
of paradise. Moreover they wanted to appropriate
something that did not belong to them (knowledge =
"stealing fire from heaven" and possibly immortality). So
they have forfeited right to complain about the
consequences (thus the devil can take them all).
Note: Ivan compounds the pagan myth about Prometheus (who actually
gave fire to men) and the biblical myth about the first transgression (the
discovery of free will was actually prompted by the prohibition

14 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

pronounced by God).

Question 4: All the same, why "the little ones"?

(b) Ivan refuses to include children into the chain of
suffering and to regard suffering as a legitimate means for
something good and valuable. How can we accept the logic
that a higher and greater good justifies the suffering of
innocent children? Not even a universal good could
compensate the suffering of a single child. Especially not if
the only gain is knowledge. "The whole world of knowledge
is not worth that child's prayer to 'dear, kind God'." Why
God does not at least prevent the suffering of children if he
cannot avoid general suffering?

Incomprehensibility: Although the principles of Euclidean mind require that we

find a rational explanation and moral justification for the
general misery in the world as well as for the suffering of
children in particular we do not get any satisfactory answer.
But even if we had any explanation, no answer could be
morally acceptable.
"I understand nothing, I don't want to understand anything
now?"

Note: Striving to understand is psychologically motivated. We feel safer

if we understand what is going on around us. Ivan wants to understand in
order to be able to overcome the anxiety aroused by the troubling
constitution of this world. But he cannot because it is absurd - it resists
understanding both logically and morally.

Eight Problem: Why refuse Understanding?

Determination: By definition, absurdity cannot be understood. But Ivan

does not want even to make a try to anderstand.
"I made my mind long ago not to understand."
Why is Ivan refusing to understand?
Mediation: To understand means to relate to something else, higher,
more comprehensive, forthcoming, redeeming. In other
words, it means to excuse and justify the unjustifiable. And
exactly this rationalization is not just and moral. It
circumvents the reality of suffering and the innocence of
the victims. Justification does not necessarily lead to justice
(it is not identical with justice).

Note: The decision not to understand could be a sign of humility that is

the source of the will to believe (faith). But Ivan's refusal to understand
is a sign of human pride that leads either to resignation or rebellion.
Facts for In order not to betray the reality of existing suffering we
Themselves: have to reject any attempt to put it into a "bigger picture",
"perspective", or "context":
"I want to stick to the fact. If I try to understand anything, I

15 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

shall be false to the fact and I have determined to stick to

the fact."
Hidden Purpose: Maybe the facts of suffering will be somehow integrated
into a higher invisible purpose. Perhaps God knows what is
this all misery for?
Belief: If I believe in God I shall also believe in his promise that
everything will be eventually redeemed. In the Book of
Revelation it is said that "He will wipe every tear from their
lives. There will be no more death, or mourning, or crying
or pain for the old order of things has passed away." (Rev.,
21, 4)

"I believe like a child that suffering will be healed and

made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human
contradictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage... that in the
world's finale, at the moment of eternal harmony,
something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice
for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, for the
atonement of all crimes of humanity, of all the blood
they've shed."

Atonement: Thus Ivan traces down the consequences of his initial

assent to God. He accepts that there could be a final end
which will redeem all sufferings and atone all crimes in the
world. And he understands the meaning of that moment: It
is going to be a radical turn of events, the most
comprehensive change in the whole history of mankind
(suffering, crimes and all illnesses will be eliminated from
the world).
Upheaval: "I understand, of course, what an upheaval of the universe
it will be, when everything in heaven and earth blends in
one hymn of praise and everything that lives and has lived
cries aloud: 'Thou art just, O Lord, for Thy ways are
revealed.'"
Longing: All religions are built on a longing for a such consolation,
compensation, reconciliation, atonement, redemption, and
harmony. What religions offer/promise is an attempt to
quench this longing. If we cannot have finality now we
should be given the prospect of attaining the final end in the
future.
Condition: Ivan accepts this idea of harmony assuming that all affected
perons can witness that compensating and redeeming end.
If I have suffered for something I want to see that suffering
redeemed. Otherwise it would be unfair or in vain. Not to
speak about manipulations or mistakes that are always
possible, self-deception included.
Note: If I stake out everything on eternity and hereafter and
consequently sacrifice my life (like a monk) then
everything hinges on whether that promised harmony will

16 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

come to pass or not. If it does not follow I have lost

everything. Contrary to Pascal's Wager, in that case for the
whole life one can say: use it or lose it.
Understanding: At the moment of final reconciliation God will be praised
and men will reach "the crown of knowledge"- they will
understand what they have been observing only through a
mirror. The 'Euclidian' indirect (rational) knowledge will be
replaced with a direct intuition of the perfect order. But
Ivan cannot understand that it was necessary to go through
suffering in the first place and he cannot accept the
atonement of all committed crimes.

Ninth Problem: What to do with Children?

The idea that the victims should be compensated and

witness their compensation is fair and acceptable. However,
one difficulty remains unresolved. "What about the
children?" Even if I can see the result accomplished in
general, I cannot see how it redeems the suffering of
children.
Unanswerable Why should children suffer? Why they should pay for the
Question: final harmony even if it is the price for the coveted result?
"If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what
have children to do with it...?" "Why should they furnish
material to enrich the soil for the harmony of the future?"
Solidarity: Hereditary sin implies a responsibility that is transferred to
descendants (if they are adults).
Ivan accepts this solidarity in retaliation (punishment)
although it could be questioned as well.
Collective and lasting punishment for previous crimes of
ancestors or fellow nationals makes sense for grown up
people. Especially if they continue to enjoy the benefits of
the transgression ("fire from heaven" = knowledge,
freedom).
Exclusion: But children must not be included in the lineage of adult
people's guilt and punishment (no "solidarity in retribution"
for them). They are absolutely innocent.

Therefore the suffering of children cannot be inculculated

in the final tally of the redeemed world. The opposite goes
against human logic and moral sense.
Note: The argument that children are part of human race and therefore
must share its fate is cynical; of course, they are, but those whose lives
have been taken before they were able to reach adulthood are members
of human race only virtually.
Renouncement: Although the final atonement "will make it not only
possible to forgive, but to justify all that has happened with
men" Ivan does not accept it. If not in principle than at
least with regard to children. Hence he does not want to
take part in a reconciliation that would incorporate crimes

17 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

committed over children. At the end of time he does not

want to join the chorus of praise to the wise Creator even if
he succumbed to the appeal of the moment. He cannot
accept that harmony.
From "love of humanity" he does not accept this harmony
(he has a better concept of humanity and higher
expectations from life stemming from the notion of justice).
Difficulty: "With my pitiful, earthly, Euclidian understanding, all I
know is that there is suffering and that there are none
guilty; that cause follows effect, simply and directly; that
everything flows and finds its level - but that's only
Euclidian nonsense, I know that, and I can't consent to live
by it!"
Note: This is the most difficult sentence in the whole selection. The
beginning is intelligible up to the phrase "none guilty" which poses
significant problems. Does it refer to God, unknown perpetrators or
innocent children? It could be taken in a very general, unspecified way.
Nobody is guilty for the sufferings of mankind, or at least we do not see
who is to be blamed. The world consists of causal chains but there is no
causal connection between the suffering and guilt. If nobody is guilty
there is no justice.
Causality: However, it is possible to interpret this passage in a more
specific manner. If we take Constance Garnett's translation
as our guide ("cause follows effect") the resulting idea
would be a regressive concept of causation that contradicts
our natural understanding of causation according to which
cause always precedes effect (or at least is simultaneous
with it) but never comes after it.
In another translation the passage gives a different
meaning: "all things follow simply and directly one from
another". If we follow this version of the text we get a
better meaning. In the world of physics and logic
everything unfolds according to the principles that we can
understand. But in the world of men we have absurdity:
those who have not caused anything are exposed to the
effects of suffering. They suffer without any reason or
cause. You may say that everything happens for a reason,
but in this case it is not consoling to accept that general
principle because what is needed here is justice.
Note: Whichever translation we accept Ivan makes a reference to the
Enlightenment dictum that a stimulus leads to a response and that,
consequently, events in the world are subject to the principle of
causation. If so, our lives (effects) should be determined by our previous
acts (causes), not gratuitously defined by chance (being either friendly -
like grace - or adverse). But with the suffering of the innocent we have
an effect without any cause. There is suffering and still there are "none
guilty". This is outrageous and Ivan, with his earthly mind, is not willing
to consent to the principle "suffering exists" but "none are guilty", or
those who suffer have not caused their suffering .
Non-sense: We now see why that what a Euclidian mind can
comprehend is "nonsense" when matched with reality or
the Christian point of view. That "everything flows and
finds its level" (reaches equilibrium) may be in keeping

18 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

with Euclidian reasoning that every effect has a cause;

however, it resonates much more with the eschatological
perspective than with reality or Euclidian geometry. With
regard to that perspective it is just a "Euclidian nonsense".
Why Ivan cannot live by "Euclidian nonsense" when he
defends it otherwise? Because it cannot provide any
justification or intelligibility for the actual suffering of the
innocent. The idea of equilibrium is something we can
understand and accept but the facts do not support it now
and the promise of subsequent fulfillment rests on some
troubling assumptions. Even if intelligible it remains
unacceptable because of its moral cost.
Beyond 'Ken' How can Ivan exclude any possibility of redemption and
reconciliation? He cannot, but he contends that such a
reconciliation of evil is humanly incomprehensible (it is
"beyond our ken" = knowledge). Therefore it could be
accepted only on faith. Everything else will be just an
overly optimistic distortion of reality like the counterfactual
claim that the world is good.
Note: Dostoevsky evidently echoes Voltaire's critique of the
teleological and eschatological optimism as satirically formulated in
The Candide. The real target was Leibniz and his overly rationalistic
view that the actual world with all its misfortunes and injustices was
"the best of all possible worlds" (given the constraints of logic and
reality). Hegel mocked this same idea by comparing the world of
Leibniz with a "grocery store" - one can get there only that what is
available.
Self-Protection: The main reason for renouncing the eternal harmony is
moral. Ivan does not want to partake in something that is
inherently unjust. "While there is still time, I hasten to
protect myself and so I renounce the higher harmony
altogether." He does not want to be involved in such a
harmony. On the contrary, he hastens to exclude himself
and to withdraw from any partnership in the whole
arrangement.

Decision:

Tenth Problem: What to do with Myself?

Meaningless Ivan cannot live by the principle that there is suffering and that
Suffering: there are none guilty. That is tantamount to saying that there is
no justice. He cannot accept that there is meaningless
suffering. That would be sheer evil.
Instrumental evil in its various forms (suffering, sacrifice, pain)
is acceptable under very specific conditions:

Acceptable Unacceptable
Voluntary Unwilling
Sacrifice Sacrifice

19 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

Results Results
During Life Postponed
Time Indefinitely
Resurrection No
after Death Resurrection

If somebody by his own will sacrifices himself, obtains the

result or is given the opportunity to see it after death, this is a
legitimate choice, assuming it does not involve anybody's
non-consensual suffering.
Meaningful
Suffering: But Ivan cannot accept "meaningful suffering" if it is inflicted
upon others without their consent. Even if we could make the
whole world happy by torturing to death a single peevish baby
we are not permitted to do that. Ivan is not willing to live by
the principle that the innocent must suffer for the sake of
something else even if that happens to be something higher and
more universal. He wants that undeserved suffering never
occurs.

Full Restitution: If suffering is inflicted on others then nothing short of full

restitution is acceptable. For Ivan, it is not satisfactory to say
that justice will come in some remote infinite time and space.
He wants to see it it with his own eyes. Here and now "on
earth". Otherwise it is a non-verfiable promise that could easily
become the subject of endless manipulation and deception. It is
only just to allow that those who suffered (by their own will to
be sure), to witness the final compensation for their sacrifice.
Ivan himself wants to see it in its entirety restituting everything
damaged and hurt including the tears of the children.
Irreparability: But a total restitution is not possible. Once you inflict suffering
it has been inflicted for ever. This means that justice can never
be served fully.
Justice: "What comfort is to me that there are none guilty and that
cause follows effect simply and directly, and that I know it - I
must have justice, or I will destroy myself." There is no justice
if nobody is responsible for the suffering of the innocent in a
world created by God. Even if we accept the possibility of
voluntary sacrifice and individual compensation we must
realize that it has some boundaries. In fact, it seems that once
committed crimes and inflicted sufferings do not allow a
satisfactory response in the current scheme of things nor a fair
compensation in eternity.
Note: These lines echoe Schiller's poem "Resignation" (1784) in which
eternity admits that it cnnot restitute what we lose in a minute. Hope and faith
are denounced as the only (illusionary) pay and alloted joy for the missed
happiness.
Since I cannot get full restitution and justice, eternal harmony
at the end does not help resolve the problem of denied

20 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

happiness. What should I do?

Premises:

A. Unintelligible "I cannot understand why the world is arranged as it is." I am

Reality: not able to understand what else may be in the universe or in
God's mind, but it is an undeniable fact that in this world
innocent people suffer and that I do not see why.
B. Immoral It is not morally acceptable to make men happy in the end if
Linkage: the condition for that happiness is "to torture to death only one
tiny creature". It is immoral to cause suffering and it is
absolutely immoral to make the innocent children suffer for the
sake of some future good. "If all must suffer to pay for the
eternal harmony, what have children to do with it?" They have
not done anything. It is therefore unforgivable to inflict pain on
them and particularly to instrumentalize their lives.
C. Disproportion: If children suffer there is no justifiable proportion between
cause and effect. On the contrary, innocence would then
trigger punishment, which is absurd.
D. Unacceptable Nothing is "worth the tears of one tortured child". The final
Means: end cannot justify all the crimes that have been committed on
the way toward it. Not even "the tears of that one tortured
child who beat itself on the breast with its little feast and
prayed in its stinking out-hose with an expiated tear to 'dear,
kind God'."
E. Devaluation: The cost is too high no matter what should be the final good.
(Such a good is a "diabolical good" if it entails the suffering of
children.) "And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum
of sufferings which was necessary to pay for the truth, then I
protest that the truth is not worth such a price."
F. Insufficiency: To enjoy the benefits of crime is outrageous. All the more so to
ground the edifice of happiness on un-avenged tears of
children. But even if the oppressors are going to be punished at
the end, this does not make the whole scheme more
acceptable. "What good can hell do, since those children have
already been tortured?" Revenge is not atonement. Avenging
does not atone for. Once the tears have been shed, the damage
is irrevocable.
Forgiveness: I can forgive for myself, not for others. Parents can forgive for
themselves, if they will, only for the pain they have suffered.
But the sufferings of their tortured children they have no right
to forgive. They dare not forgive the torturers, even if the
Top of the Page
children were to forgive them!
Not even God has the right to forgive the crime and then
ground the subsequent harmony on the suffering previously
inflicted on the innocent.
Moralism: Ivan Karamazov is sometimes portrayed as a "philosophical
cynic", or, to use the words of Oscar Wilde, somebody who
knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. His

21 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

reasoning in this matter shows, however, that his position is not

that of cynicism = knowing how things are bad but not minding
that. His true convictions are rather moralistic = not wanting
to accept anything less than full justice. Consequently, he
refuses any action that entails undeserved pain of the innocent,
let alone the one which puts them in the situation of "collateral
damage" in the pursuit of some good . This is the position of
absolutely "clean hands", difficult but noble. Since this attitude
is not suited for real social world (the rule of majority,
utilitarian principles of decision making, teleology of historical
progress) a withdrawal from the world appears to be an
inevitable outcome.

Consequences:

Incompleteness: Harmony is good in itself if it is complete. But real harmony is

not possible if everything is not atoned for, avenged, forgiven
and restituted.
(a) Atonement: A full atonement is not possible if there is only one tear left
un-atoned. If the price for the happiness of all men is to torture
one individual to death it is not worth paying it. If the price is
exacted there will be no atonement.
(b) Avenging: Revenge and punishment only partly compensate the pain and
the loss. It is not possible to avenge all crimes on earth, or at
least this is not happening. If the punishment is postponed for
the Last Judgment then hell will coexist with harmony. But it is
incompatible with harmony. And why do we want to avenge
something that has already been done? To appease our
feelings. But this would be only a cover up. Leaving suffering
un-avenged is in fact better than an unprincipled acceptance of
atonement. Avenging crimes creates the illusion of a just
compensation. At least un-avenged suffering does not blur the
distinction between the just and the unjust.
(c) Forgiveness: Forgiveness is better than revenge, but there are limits in
imparting forgiveness. It could be given only for ourselves, not
for others. If parents must not forgive for the children exposed
to suffering, what is left of harmony? To say the least, it is
incomplete.
Restitution Impossible
Atonement Incomplete
Avenging Futile
Punishing Contradictory
Forgiveness Limited

(1) Personal: Both avenged and forgiven sufferings do not meet Ivan's moral
standards. Since it is not possible to undo once inflicted
suffering and pay full justice there is no solution for the
problem of innocent suffering. This outcome affects Ivan's

22 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

personal existence.

"I must have justice or I will destroy myself." (Suicide?)

"And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am
an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible."
(By giving back the ticket Ivan rejects the show: salvation)
Note: This is a reference to the verses of Schiller: "Take, then, these
joy-credentials back from me! Unopened I return them now to thee, Of
happiness, alas, know naught!" Both Ivan and the poet have not used their
ticket to happiness. However, there is an important difference: while the
poet returns the ticket for his earthly happiness in order to redeem it in
eternity, Ivan returns the ticket in order to avoid its redemption in eternal
harmony.
Morality
Source Human Understanding
Nature Absolute Justice
Purpose Peace of Mind

(2) Theological Can God be justified in view of the existing evil? How can we
Issue: reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of God? How
the following three propositions could be reconciled (all are
theologically uncontestable):

(1) God is all powerful. (2) God is wholly good. (3) Evil exists.

The Problem of Theodicy

Final Stance: Ivan has tentatively exempted God from his doubts and
attacks. Although he was not sure whether God existed he
agreed to say "yes" to Him. But he shifted his focus to the
world and its finale. In this way he demonstrated that the
problem did not lie with God himself but in the relation
between God and the world. Now the initially accepted God
needs to be justified in view of the factual suffering and
injustice or the appropriate conclusions have to be drawn
relative to His nature and even existence.

Possible Answers:

Weakness: 1. God is not all-powerful, or at least, all-knowing. Thus He

either cannot prevent evil or is not aware of it. This could be
the case and if so God would be fully exonerated. But does He
then (as weak and ignorant) deserve our veneration?
Disillusionment: 2. God is not good. A wholly good God could not consent with
evil. If this is the case we can only pity or fear Him, not
respect or love Him. A denial of goodness would be an easy
way to avoid the problem, but no theologian would accept it.

23 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

Necessity: 3. Evil is necessary as a counterpart of good, or good cannot

exist without evil, or evil is a means to a higher good. Some
theologians offer this as an explanation. But this solution also
sets limits to what God can do. The limits are either logical or
physical. In both cases they cast doubts on God's omnipotence.
Additional problem is that we do not see why the world cannot
exist without evil.
Optimism: 4. The world with evil is better than the one without it. This
comes down to the idea that this is the best world possible
(Leibniz), which is a counter-empirical claim. It is very
difficult to find evidence for the claim about the "best possible
world" and to accept the reasoning for the contention that a
world with evil is to be preferred to the one without it. Voltaire
has justifiably ridiculed the inclination of many intellectuals to
accept this self-deceptive world-view.
Benefit: 5. Some theologians claim that evil is here to enable us to
better value the good. But this is a too high price for our ability
to distinguish between right and wrong. If God could have
done differently he should have. Not to avoid suffering of the
innocent (if you can) is morally even more problematic than
just allowing it. If God was not able to find another way of
teaching people then He is not all-powerful. The same answer
holds for the contention that elimination of evil would be
tantamount to a permanent deception as to the ruggedness of
reality. Why not create a different reality?
Pietism: 6. We do not understand God's ways. Endowed with an
Euclidean mind we cannot understand a superhuman reasoning
that we must assume for God. Therefore we should refrain
from calling discrepancies in the world and especially from
judging God. A sub-variant of this answer says that God allows
evil or what appears to be evil for His own purposes. However,
this solution separates God from the world and humans from
Him. Not to mention that it abdicates from using reason in
evaluating the world.
Free Will: 7. Evil is due to human free will and God should not be blamed
for it. But this solution opens new questions. Has God made
men so free that He cannot do anything with their choices?
Why God has not made men so that they always freely choose
the good?
Atheism: 8. God does not exist. It is inconceivable that any God worthy
of respect would allow suffering of the innocent. Therefore
pure logic requires to reach the verdict of non-existence.
Ivan's Position Ivan vacillates between atheism, theism and agnosticism. He
first accepted the creation of the world but then rejected it
based on his moral principles. This could not leave God
untouched either. Eventually not only the creation of a specific
world but the Creator himself becomes a target. The existence
of the world is adduced as the most powerful evidence against
its Creator.
Ivan does not accept theodicy both in view of so many evils

24 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM
Theodicy http://www.uri.edu/students/szunjic/philos/karam.htm

and in general; for him it is a mechanism of rationalization that

cannot be morally justified. The question whether God exists
or not must be reopen.

Reasons for It seems that the suffering of the innocent is the strongest and
Belief and probably the most frequent reason for religious skepticism.
Disbelief:

In contrast, the perfection of organic design and apparent

regularities in the universe are the strongest basis in favor of
the belief in the "direct hand of a divine architect".

25 of 25 16-Mar-14 8:27 PM