Was Dostoevsky an Atheist?

I am reading Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. This is one of the most fascinating books I have ever read. First I got started with a bit difficulty in understanding the book. Later on I found the book profoundly captivating. But I got stuck by two questions in the course of writing.
• Given some characters like the Elder and Alyosha I thought that Dostoevsky had a liking to religion, God and the idea of immortality.
• As the reading followed the book had a different impression on me and I felt that Dostoevsky was a nonbeliever
It is really hard to say conclusively given the so many characters all having their own ideas presented in such a logical and philosophical manner whether he was a theist or atheist in point of fact.
I hope may on this forum have gone through the book and had presented critical essays / reviews on the book.
Among the books I have read lately this book stands out in terms of the multiplicity of characters, themes and the philosophies.
I hope my skepticisms will be clear with your views

you have to understand that a person may believe in God or Religion or be an atheist
what Dostoevsky did in TBK is he became everyone, a genius, he became both sides, as you will see in the trial at the end there is a chapter where psychology is described as a A Stick with Two Ends. How do you call a man like that, he is nor believer nor an atheist, he is truly a genius!

I'm very glad that you're enjoying such a great writer. I've never read The Brothers, but I've read almost everything else by him and I can tell you, he is certainly not an atheist. But nor is he some sort of fundimentalist.

He can be regarded as a Christain existentialist, a lot like Kierkegaard. You should probably read The Idiot after you finish The Brothers, because it is one of the most clear statements on his religous views. I also reccomend the short story Dream of a Ridiculous Man.

From what I'm aware of, Dostoevsky was a devout Russian Orthodox Christian. Although, he can be thought of us a Christian Existentialist like Kierkegaard. The Grand Inquisitor parable also functions as a veiled critique of Catholicism.

Edit: Don't forget Notes From Underground, that one clearly shows the Existentialist train of thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

From what I'm aware of, Dostoevsky was a devout Russian Orthodox Christian. Although, he can be thought of us a Christian Existentialist like Kierkegaard. The Grand Inquisitor parable also functions as a veiled critique of Catholicism.

Edit: Don't forget Notes From Underground, that one clearly shows the Existentialist train of thought.

---

It should considering it gave birth to Existentialism.

The brilliance of The Brothers Karamazov is that it takes all sides without leaning specifically to one. Dostoevsky and his characters are sitting precariously in a neutral position: between faith and doubt.

The main juxtaposition is between Ivan and Zossima - and it has often been noted that The Grand Inquistor and the other Ivan chapters trump the overly religious sections of A life in a Christian monk.

As for what Dostoevsky was: does it matter? His novel encompasses all, its irrelavent what the author believes. Whether Shakespeare is a pink flamingo or not takes nothing away from his work.

Dostoevsky was everything, he was a strict Christian, a faithful atheist and freethinker, a rabid nihilist, a stout anti-nihilist, a hardcore conservative, a radical liberal, a simpleton, an intellectual, a man obsessed with despair, a man who embraced the beauty of life, he had it all in him. That's what makes him so great, he had a taste of everything and used it all to create some of the most fascinating characters in all the literary world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desolation

Dostoevsky was everything, he was a strict Christian, a faithful atheist...

---

How can you be a Christian and an atheist?

Dostoevsky made some very deep representations of atheists and Christians in his novels. But that doesn't mean he had to be both Christian and atheist. You can only find out if Dostoevsky was a Christian by reading biographical material, if there's enough material. (As there isn't for Shakespeare.)

Novels are fiction and you cannot deduce the actual beliefs of a real world person from fiction, at least not with any certainty. (Though I tend to believe Shakespeare is post-Christian from his fictions!) From the little I've read about Dostoevsky, I get the impression he was a fairly conservative Christian with (of course) a Russian orthodox slant, but I haven't looked into his life as much as I would like to.

I guess I should read a good biography of the man. Any suggestions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wat??

It should considering it gave birth to Existentialism.

---

That's silly, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were both before Dostoevsky.

Edit: Well Nietzsche is kind of a contemporary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

How can you be a Christian and an atheist?

Dostoevsky made some very deep representations of atheists and Christians in his novels. But that doesn't mean he had to be both Christian and atheist. You can only find out if Dostoevsky was a Christian by reading biographical material, if there's enough material. (As there isn't for Shakespeare.)

Novels are fiction and you cannot deduce the actual beliefs of a real world person from fiction, at least not with any certainty. (Though I tend to believe Shakespeare is post-Christian from his fictions!) From the little I've read about Dostoevsky, I get the impression he was a fairly conservative Christian with (of course) a Russian orthodox slant, but I haven't looked into his life as much as I would like to.

I guess I should read a good biography of the man. Any suggestions?

---

What I meant by that is that, from what I've read, he flip-flopped between the two, and despite being a strict conservative Christian for the later part of his life, he constantly questioned his faith.

I would agree with mayneverhave and Desolation. It doesn't matter what D's personal beliefs were. Judge the work on its own merits, as its own world. Leave the Creator out of his Creation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankMarcopolos

I would agree with mayneverhave and Desolation. It doesn't matter what D's personal beliefs were. Judge the work on its own merits, as its own world. Leave the Creator out of his Creation.

---

I agree! :D

It has been said that Dostoyevsky was the 'arch heirophant of intellectual self-consciousness' (Middleton Murray). He rediscovered the metaphysical in empirical terms invoking ancient truths, many which had ceased to be convincing, & influenced modernism.

I would say that after his atheist period & when he came back from exile he exhibited a form of Slavophile Anarcho-Christianity which was fiercely anti-Catholic. He seemed to believe in the acceptance of freewill & moral choice & the suffering that this inevitably brings, almost suggesting an 'every man can become a Christ' utopianism.

He also disliked the zapadnik 'Westernist' writers which is why he viciously parodied Turgenev in The Devils.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

That's silly, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were both before Dostoevsky.

---

Well worth reading is Henrik Ibsen's monumental play of 1865, Brand, which pre-dates the major Dostoevsky novels, and presents Kierkegaard's existential Christian hero in all his glory. Here too, the writer's religious sympathies are less than clear.

He was a Mormon. It is a little known fact that his death was faked, and he emigrated to Utah and wrote westerns the rest of his life.

That's about how silly this discussion is.

@ OrphanPip ~ 'That's silly, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were both before Dostoevsky.'

I am fairly sure that Nietzsche was highly influenced by reading Dostoyevsky's Zapiski Is Podpolya 'Notes From Underground'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

He was a Mormon. It is a little known fact that his death was faked, and he emigrated to Utah and wrote westerns the rest of his life.

That's about how silly this discussion is.

---

:lol: ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

@ OrphanPip ~ 'That's silly, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were both before Dostoevsky.'

I am fairly sure that Nietzsche was highly influenced by reading Dostoyevsky's Zapiski Is Podpolya 'Notes From Underground'.

---

He was. After reading it, he called Dostoevsky "the only psychologist from whom I can learn anything." He unfortunately never had the chance to read many other works by Dostoevsky, though. If I recall correctly, he had read 'Notes from Underground' only a couple of years before his mental breakdown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desolation

He was. After reading it, he called Dostoevsky "the only psychologist from whom I can learn anything." He unfortunately never had the chance to read many other works by Dostoevsky, though. If I recall correctly, he had read 'Notes from Underground' only a couple of years before his mental breakdown.

---

That sounds right. Dostoyevsky was more famous than Tolstoy in Russia at one time. They never actually met although there were plans to try & get them to. I don't think Dostoyevsky approved of much of Tolstoy's work. He also disliked Turgenev (who virtually discovered Tolstoy) intensely. He parodied him as Karmazinov, the famous writer toadying to the revolutionaries & nihilists in 'The Devils'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

@ OrphanPip ~ 'That's silly, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were both before Dostoevsky.'

I am fairly sure that Nietzsche was highly influenced by reading Dostoyevsky's Zapiski Is Podpolya 'Notes From Underground'.

---

Most of Nietzsche's work predated his exposure to Dostoevsky, though he certainly appreciated Dostoevsky. He is also certainly a very influential figure in the history of Existentialism, but Notes From Underground did not create the philosophy.

I only know that he read 'Notes From Underground'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

I only know that he read 'Notes From Underground'.

---

In 1887, after having already written The Gay Science, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and Beyond Good and Evil. His philosophy was developed separately from Dostoevsky's novels, but it shares a shocking similarity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

In 1887, after having already written The Gay Science, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and Beyond Good and Evil. His philosophy was developed separately from Dostoevsky's novels, but it shares a shocking similarity.

---

I've read Daybreak, Zarathustra & Beyond Good & Evil, plus I have a few anthologies of Nietzsche's works.

Like I said, I am only really aware of the effect that 'Underground' had on Nietzsche. I think apart from Nietzsche's reading that, any other similarities were coincidental.

You may be interested in this.

In all fairness, Nietzsche's most interesting works (Twilight of the Idols, The Anti-Christ and Ecce Homo) were written after Nietzsche discovered Dostoevsky, so it can fairly be said that Dostoevsky was an important influence.

atheism wasn't common at that time as it is now or during USSR time. But in 20th century authors mainly questioned social issues - morality for instance but not God. the answer Dostoevsky gives in his novels - is to be human - you need to be with God. even after commiting a crime (e.g. Crime and Punishment)
P.S. try the Devils - it is also worth reading

Just because one has a curiosity for the mechanics of the mind of a genius author such as Dostoevsky means not that they are not judging the work by it's own merits :)
P.s.
Notes from the Underground is a brilliant work, incredibly revealing with a spin on existentialism that makes Dostoevsky all the more intriguing...If you haven't read it yet, I'm sure there are some cheap copies on Amazon or in your local half-price bookstore ^_^

There is no 'spin on' existentialism, every passage within the book is the underground man detailing his existential angst. The book is as close as anybody might ever come to explaining what existentialism is.

The perverse thing is, that, if you can appreciate the points Dostoevsky is making, truly appreciate them, then you will be unable to laugh or sympathise, because you will be reading about yourself. From a distance. On the 'horizont' as it were.

Lonely around people and lonely alone..... what else is there to be done but be alone?

Dostoevsky's intention in The Brothers Karamazov was to show the atheists that he could (with 'The Grand Inquisitor') construct a better argument for atheism than any atheist at the time. The rest of the novel after that is a refutation of his own atheist argument.

In early life he was an atheist, and later became a great believer - both was greatly used in Brothers Karamazov, that's why both Ivan and Alyosha are looking so real.

Searched on the Internet for one, and has come across another, but has all the same decided to leave the opinion. If I have correctly understood, there is a discussion atheist Dostoevsky or not. If you're interested, you can ask me different questions about Dostoevsky, and I'll try to answer you, but I assure you Dostoevsky was not an atheist. Dostoevsky's childhood passed in a Christian family, since the earliest childhood every day they read the Gospel, were learned as at the priest.
When Dostoevsky only started to write the first novels, he has got acquainted with critic Belinsky. Belinsky has found at once in it the big talent, but reproached Dostoevsky, with its belief, derided and played a trick on Dostoevsky. Belinsky didn't hide that was a socialist, and consequently also the atheist. In general on an extent of all life Dostoevsky had only one book which lay always on its table is "New testament". It is possible to speak much also about Christian symbols, in its creativity.
As I see that you discuss head «Great inquisitor» from «Karamazovs» much.
In general if who hasn't understood that he wanted to tell it actually I can result an opening address told on literart morning in favor of students of the S.-Petersburg university on December, 30th, 1879 before reading of head «Grand INQUISITOR», it explains much that the Author wanted to tell. (I translate as I can on English, I think in Eng variant in general there is no it as even in Russian such to find has made to me many efforts).

“One atheist suffering by disbelief in one of painful minutes composes a wild, fantastic poem in which deduces the Christ in conversation with one of Catholic high priests — the Grand inquisitor. The suffering of the author of a poem occurs because that he in the image of the high priest with outlook Catholic, so left from ancient apostolic Orthodoxy, sees truly the present attendant Christ's. Meanwhile its Great inquisitor is, in effect, the atheist. That sense that if you will deform Christ's belief, having connected it to the purposes of this world all sense of Christianity will at once be lost also, mind undoubtedly should run into unbelief, instead of a great Christ's ideal created only new Babel tower. The high sight of Christianity at mankind goes down to a sight as though on animal herd, and under the pretext of social love to mankind not so not disguised contempt for it is. It is stated in the form of conversation of two brothers. One brother, the atheist, tells a plot of the poem to another.”

p.s. Though some time ago I was in the U.S. and I had to learn your language, but still I know it's bad enough to fully express their thoughts. My apologies for the various errorsin the text.

It certainly is within the original poster's rights to speculate on an author's religious leanings, but would knowing whether Dostoyevski was an atheist change the work in any way? In general we're supposed to focus not so much on the artist but on the work; otherwise, the only things we would be reading would be autobiographies.

I just finished re-reading "Tradition and Individual Talent," and even though Eliot was talking about poetry, he argued that the artist's own personal history is irrelevant. And D.H. Lawrence likewise supposedly said: "Do not trust the teller; trust the tale."

good suggestion!!!!!

To understand his faith,one must be of an Orthodox believe,for a beginning.The other thing everyone should take in consideration is that The Brothers Karamazov was intended to be only first of the three parts of a gigantic work - The Life of a Great Sinner,in a way similar to Dantes Comedia.First book was to show the malace of human kind,and failed not to do it;and that's why character of Aljosa seems weak,uncompleted in the book,his strenght was to be revealed later,and there everyone would sense power of his truly religious thought(which is simple in its theories,yet doubthless)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Piksi90

To understand his faith,one must be of an Orthodox believe,for a beginning.The other thing everyone should take in consideration is that The Brothers Karamazov was intended to be only first of the three parts of a gigantic work - The Life of a Great Sinner,in a way similar to Dantes Comedia.First book was to show the malace of human kind,and failed not to do it;and that's why character of Aljosa seems weak,uncompleted in the book,his strenght was to be revealed later,and there everyone would sense power of his truly religious thought(which is simple in its theories,yet doubthless)

---

You maybe right. I really became highly confused and could not land with any particular thought. While I immensely enjoyed the work of this great writer with his insuperably ambitious work, I could not settle myself when it came to his philosophical proposition

I think like all young ideological rebels, Dostoevsky saw himself as part of the reactionary force of his time. Against the orthodox views that conform everyone to christian values and beliefs. But I think later in his work, he tends to go back to be a conservative and claim God as true. Because of fear of death? Who knows, but in the end he thought that a conservative way of lifestyle will guide the nation. So from a radical liberal he became a conservative, and with the same step moved towards the position of a believer. "Notes from the Underground" kinda hints at it, the perspective he writes in some way is an ideological battle between his younger self and this maturing Dostoevsky.

I've posted this before. This is something I read in an introduction to "The Brothers Karamazov":

“Dostoevsky’s own faith derives its strength from the fact that he has himself passed through atheism. Commenting on the critics of The Brothers Karamazov, he wrote contemptuously,

‘The dolts have ridiculed my obscurantism and the reactionary character of my faith. These fools could not even conceive so strong a denial of God as the one to which I gave expression . . . The whole book is an answer to that . . . You might search Europe in vain for so powerful an expression of atheism. Thus it is not like a child that I believe in Christ and confess Him. My hosanna has come forth from the very crucible of doubt.’”

I think it has been covered in the thread already, but he was a believer.

I think the question of whether that matters, or to what degree it should influence our reading of his works (if at all), is a different question. It's an interesting one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

I just finished re-reading "Tradition and Individual Talent," and even though Eliot was talking about poetry, he argued that the artist's own personal history is irrelevant. And D.H. Lawrence likewise supposedly said: "Do not trust the teller; trust the tale."

---

I was taught the maxims "there is no author," and "there is no authorial intent" during my brief time in college.

Not sure whether I agree with that, although I find it interesting, and I see merit there.

Having completed a great majoity of dostoevskys' work now i will say i think clearly he was an atheist,in that he didnt believe in an active deity. But i will qualify that by saying that dostoevsky understood as well as Nietzsche that he could make the idea iof christ come true by his own faith and that of others. and i will say that you will have to search all the realms of history to find a guy with the passion and realism of faith displayed by fyodor. 'we will take god underground'. 'we have to redeem those in the graves'
Tolstoy and dostoevsky are two of the greatest christians in my opinion,greater than christ and all the monks...

Hi

It seems this post is a bit of out of date, but nevertheless I will reply as followings now:

One minute ago I finished reading TBK, which is my first try of his novels, but nevertheless the question whether Dostoevsky is an Atheist has been haunted in my mind for quite a while. And at the end, I believe he believes in God. Ivan is a non-believer, his motto is "every thing is permited", because he refuses the existence of God and the life beyond grave, and therefore he believes nobody will be punished for any sin he has done in this world. His father, the old Karamazov's religious view is same as Ivan. The fates of this two people in TBK are miserable. Ivan is frightened to death by the complete nonsense insultion of Smerdyaskov. Why is he so frightened? It is precisely because he does not believe the existence of God and therefore God can not protect him. The old Karamazov was murdered by Smerdyaskov.
Smerdyaskov's motive of murder is revenge and hatred. He is jealous of his brothers and hates his father. But the question whether Smerdyaskov believes in God still puzzles me. The Elder, in my opinion, is not a believer. He shares the same view of religion, of God as the Grand Inquisitor. The author does not give a honorable funeral to him whose body decays very quickly and there is a smell of decay in the room where his body has been lied. All those non-believers do not have a good ending, while the believers all have a good ending. Although Dmitry had been accused of patricide and is convicted, but nevertheless he wins the love of his beloved lady and is going to start a new life and to complete a process of regeneration. Alyosha is a true believer who believes in God not the preaches of those Grand Inquisitor, believes in love not wealth and vanity, and he has actually surpassed his teacher the Elder. It seems that Dostoevsky deliberately assigns happy endings to believers and tragedy endings to non-believers. From this observation, I guess Dostoevsky himself is not a Atheist, and he believes in God and all the good things in this world, which is quite similar to Alyosha.

As it was mentioned before, when young he was dealing with socialism and atheism. He was sent to jail, almost executed, etc. This changed him deeply. He became more critical of socialism (the rebelion seemed to him to be not productive and ingenous) and in other hand, lack of faith seemed to him an individual misleading.
This personal changes in Dostoievisky life is reflected on the increasing quality of his work - now he had in his own mind as much voices as he wanted to express. His criticism was not just towards atheism but to romantic naivity, Rome church (the Great inquisitor bith was a towards it more than lack of faith), Russian "colonial" mindset, etc. This include a deep critic towards faith as not being hipocrisy, but an act of self, which you can see on idealistic characters like Aliocha or Myshikin.

I remember a Dostoevsky quote that was something along the lines of "it is not as a child that I believe in Christ. my hosanna was born of a furnace of doubt." I think his writing makes it clear that he considered himself to be a Christian, but I think he wrestled with the concept, and couldn't quite come to complete terms with his faith. I think he was somewhat of an Ivan, that held his character of Alyosha as what he longed for spiritually. I also think that, like Tolstoy, he held the Christian concepts from the sermon on the mount, and an attempt at a brotherhood of man at a higher level that he did his actual beief in God. He also wrote somewhat extensively of his distaste for the nihilist concepts that he believed were pervading Russia from the West, and believed in simplicity, and the goodness of the Russian Orthodox church.