Can you abstract belief in the miraculous from belief in God?

[Childe Harold]

This seems to be a question the Grand Inquisitor puts forth. His answer of course is decidedly no, since "when man reject miracle he rejects God too; for man seeks not so much God as the miraculous." One can't have one's celestial cake and eat it. This seems fair to me. Why labor under the apprehension that one owes one's existence to a creator if one can't enjoy the benefits attendant on that belief. Personally I can't see how anyone faced with the proposition that there is no heaven, that all the things one has lost will never be restored, and that things aren't all for the best can then admit the existence of a God. If this were (since this is) true, what was He thinking? Would the appropriate attitude then be resentment? assuming the person still believed there was someone to resent.

Another thing that interested me in the Grand Inquisitor was his point that it is not faith in God people want, but certainty in the miraculous, i.e heaven, which again, was something proved by the fact that man can't reject miracle and still believe in God. Would this seem to say that the faith Dostoevsky affirmed was not implicit, but in fact uncertain and doubtful. Since if it were implicit, faith wouldn't be faith but simply belief, the same belief which said that 2+2=4. This obviosly doesn't proceed from "the free verdict of the heart" but logic, since it couldn't but be that God exists. I'm particularly interested in a religious person's perspective on what I've just said. I'm ready to be enlightened, but, please, let's keep this thread free from prayers for my damned soul.

[Radio Saturday]

Before I can reply properly, I must try to clarify your argument for myself.

What you are saying is that faith in the miraculous -- in your example, heaven -- demands a faith in God. Because you don't believe in heaven (or, I am assuming, any other type of afterlife) you therefore don't have to believe in God.

Is this your argument? If so, then there isn't much of an answer, in my mind, to be made. All that I can say is that I see your point.  

Also, may I say that I find your assumption that all religious person will look on you in a harsh and judgemental light incredibly unappealing?

[underworld men]

This seems to be a question the Grand Inquisitor puts forth. His answer of course is decidedly no, since "when man reject miracle he rejects God too; for man seeks not so much God as the miraculous." One can't have one's celestial cake and eat it. This seems fair to me. Why labor under the apprehension that one owes one's existence to a creator if one can't enjoy the benefits attendant on that belief. Personally I can't see how anyone faced with the proposition that there is no heaven, that all the things one has lost will never be restored, and that things aren't all for the best can then admit the existence of a God. If this were (since this is) true, what was He thinking? Would the appropriate attitude then be resentment? assuming the person still believed there was someone to resent.

Another thing that interested me in the Grand Inquisitor was his point that it is not faith in God people want, but certainty in the miraculous, i.e heaven, which again, was something proved by the fact that man can't reject miracle and still believe in God. Would this seem to say that the faith Dostoevsky affirmed was not implicit, but in fact uncertain and doubtful. Since if it were implicit, faith wouldn't be faith but simply belief, the same belief which said that 2+2=4. This obviosly doesn't proceed from "the free verdict of the heart" but logic, since it couldn't but be that God exists. I'm particularly interested in a religious person's perspective on what I've just said. I'm ready to be enlightened, but, please, let's keep this thread free from prayers for my damned soul.

<quote>
Thou revealest anew will encroach on men's freedom of
faith; for it will be manifest as a miracle, and the freedom of
their faith was dearer to Thee than anything in those days fifteen
hundred years ago. Didst Thou not often say then, "I will make you
free"? But now Thou hast seen these "free" men,' the old man adds
suddenly, with a pensive smile. 'Yes, we've paid dearly for it,' he
goes on, looking sternly at Him, 'but at last we have completed that
work in Thy name. For fifteen centuries we have been wrestling with
Thy freedom, but now it is ended and over for good. Dost Thou not
believe that it's over for good? Thou lookest meekly at me and
deignest not even to be wroth with me. But let me tell Thee that
now, to-day, people are more persuaded than ever that they have
perfect freedom, yet they have brought their freedom to us and laid it
humbly at our feet. But that has been our doing. Was this what Thou
didst? Was this Thy freedom?'"
<quote/>

How is any of the above quote from TBK have anything to do with your inquisitor? You must be reading a different book.

[underworld men]

Or here
<quote>
Why, that's the chief part of what the old man must say.
    "'The wise and dread spirit, the spirit of self-destruction and
non-existence,' the old man goes on, great spirit talked with Thee
in the wilderness,
<quote/>

Or specifically here
<quote>

And all will be happy, all
the millions of creatures except the hundred thousand who rule over
them. For only we, we who guard the mystery, shall be unhappy. There
will be thousands of millions of happy babes, and a hundred thousand
sufferers who have taken upon themselves the curse of the knowledge of
good and evil. Peacefully they will die, peacefully they will expire
in Thy name, and beyond the grave they will find nothing but death.
<quote/>

And the greatest secret of the Grand Inquistor...

<quote>
Perhaps nothing but Atheism, that's all their secret. Your
Inquisitor does not believe in God, that's his secret!"
<quote/>

Silly just silly.

Stefan215 the inquistor doesn't even believe in God and was making the most of a bad situation. Funny how your take seems so different then the actual text. AGAIN.

[Childe Harold]

First let me respond to Radio Saturday. It's not that faith in the miraculous demands faith a God, but the other way around. More specifically, that those faithful in God also demand miracle, and can't help demanding miracle. But isn't it the ultimate test of faith that one be able to reject miracle, since having miracle confirmed or negated--the way it would be for Jesus if he jumped off the cliff--would be to succumb to temptation, would it not?. It would be the loss of faith since faith would transmute into surety, something unquestioning. To my understanding, this is not type of belief Dostoevsky or Jesus would have wanted. After all knowledge that something is certain and thus to be expected may make the chaos of the world easier to grasp, and the struggles in it more able to bear, in the same way that biologist's knowledge of evolution is neccesary to the working of his theories, but it by no means provides life with meaning.

I admit my last statement was crass. However, that the pious tend to adopt a patronizing and diminutive tone in their discourse with unbelievers is a sad truth. My attempting to avoid this is certainly not needed or intended for people like you.

[Childe Harold]

Underworld men I hate to feel you're inconvenienced in having to transcribe all these excepts from TKB.

There is another way you know. Arguing one's point of view without resorting to prolonged quoting is not just a more valid debate tactic, its timesaving.  

Yes the Grand Inquisitor is an atheist, but not before he believed in God, lived in the wilderness, and strove for that perfection and freedom his Almighty intended for him.


Yet his devoutness all came to grief one day when he discovered that "it is no great moral blessedness to attain perfection and freedom, if at the same time one gains the conviction that millions of God's creatures have been created as a mockery, that they will never be capable of using their freedom..." In other words he couldn't accept for himself that moral freedom which the majority of mankind is incapable of ever having.

This opposition between the Inquisitor who loves and thinks little of people on one side, and Jesus who loves and thinks much of people on the other.  

So the Inquisitor, realizing man's hopelessness, sets forth with his cadres at deluding the world, promising people deliverance but really ridding them of their freedom, which is such a pain and incubus to them. They, the thousands of millions, will be the ones who find nothing but annihilation after death, though they think they'll be going to heaven. This isn't to say the hundred thousand shepherds like the Inquisitor will find anything different when they die, but then again, they aren't kidding themselves. They are unhappy with this knowledge, although certainly not envious of the happy millions with they pious, illusory hopes.

I would say more if you gave something other than quotations to respond to. That the Inquisitor is an atheist is something I, as you see above, never denied. That he is making the best of a bad situation is also something I would agree with. By bad situation I take it you mean the world and the feckless and weak droves who inhabit it?

[underworld men]

I admit my last statement was crass. However, that the pious tend to adopt a patronizing and diminutive tone in their discourse with unbelievers is a sad truth. My attempting to avoid this is certainly not needed or intended for people like you.

No one is blaming you for anything. You should be honest as much as you can. I myself did not approach Dostoevsky as a fan or ally. At the time in my life that I "discovered" him, I was very much opposed to the message that I percieve as his core. There are very very valid questions to be asked from what is Dostoevsky. MikeK seems to have a knack for those kinds of things. There is no crime in asking your questions but they seem to (unlike MikeK) be based on conjecture and speculation.

[underworld men]

Underworld men I hate to feel you're inconvenienced in having to transcribe all these excepts from TKB.

silly

There is another way you know. Arguing one's point of view without resorting to prolonged quoting is not just a more valid debate tactic, its timesaving.  

Now now the truth should be respected for however one must arrive at it.

Yes the Grand Inquisitor is an atheist, but not before he believed in God, lived in the wilderness, and strove for that perfection and freedom his Almighty intended for him.

Yes the Inquisitor has a poisoned nous that has become his noose. Such is nihilism.

Yet his devoutness all came to grief one day when he discovered that "it is no great moral blessedness to attain perfection and freedom, if at the same time one gains the conviction that millions of God's creatures have been created as a mockery, that they will never be capable of using their freedom..." In other words he couldn't accept for himself that moral freedom which the majority of mankind is incapable of ever having.

Moral freedom? In what sense? Possibly that without God one has no reason to be kind to his fellow man? So the Inquisitor out of a "love" (without reason) for the weak wishes to defy the laws of nature and or the will to power?

This opposition between the Inquisitor who loves and thinks little of people on one side, and Jesus who loves and thinks much of people on the other.  

Yes people just like you Stef. Once again there is nothing wrong in fighting for the right thing but then how do you find the right thing and identify it? And how do you shut off the critical voice or that wise and dreadful spirit in your head?  

So the Inquisitor, realizing man's hopelessness, sets forth with his cadres at deluding the world, promising people deliverance but really ridding them of their freedom, which is such a pain and incubus to them.

Delude.. Fascinating. You know that Dostoevsly BELIEVED that all men were brothers. That he was the worst and lest of those. Life has so much addiction so much distraction. If one ever purely experiences the God one must still have freewill. One must walk away being full capable of rebelling against the God even after that. One must fully understand that all of the cool things in life (woman, wine and song) are gifts from the God to lighten the burden. Of these nothing is as precious as women. People who are nous-ie seem to miss this part of life. You know that whole falling in love thing. Love is the component that Zossima taught that undoes the sickness of the Inquisitor.
If not the love of a wife then the love of a mother.

 They, the thousands of millions, will be the ones who find nothing but annihilation after death, though they think they'll be going to heaven.

Welcome to the underworld Stef. Not pretty is it? I have a concept for you.... Misotheism/dystheism I leave such things to the Masons like Dostoevsky did. (PS I am no fan of it).

This isn't to say the hundred thousand shepherds like the Inquisitor will find anything different when they die, but then again, they aren't kidding themselves. They are unhappy with this knowledge, although certainly not envious of the happy millions with they pious, illusory hopes.

Such is the secret. But the secret is not the truth.

I would say more if you gave something other than quotations to respond to.

If this is to be something philosophical. I would for your own sanity suggest you cover at least the Crocodile and Notes from the underground. Just so you don't say things that Dostoevsky has already covered.

That the Inquisitor is an atheist is something I, as you see above, never denied. That he is making the best of a bad situation is also something I would agree with. By bad situation I take it you mean the world and the feckless and weak droves who inhabit it?

Bingo..the underworld the underground the captivity of the nous as a noose..

Science and technology are going to enslave man next as a matter- of course.

And this slavery mankind will not be able to defeat. This outside of the idea that technology will no longer need man anyway.

[Childe Harold]

There is no crime in asking your questions but they seem to (unlike MikeK) be based on conjecture and speculation.

All literatary interpretation is conjectural and speculative. After all no one is privvy to the mind of Dostoevsky or any one than ourselves. I grant you that authors often have definite purposed and themes in writing their novels. Dostoevsky certainly did, but according to the intrudoction in my copy of the Gambler, had a "complex, untidy, questioning view of the universe." Given that I don't think he would take it amiss for his readers to pose questions like the one I did on this thread.

Now now the truth should be respected for however one must arrive at it.

Yes but the truth isn't arrived at by quoting followed by there--.

Yes the Inquisitor has a poisoned nous that has become his noose. Such is nihilism.

Fair enough.

Moral freedom? In what sense? Possibly that without God one has no reason to be kind to his fellow man? So the Inquisitor out of a "love" (without reason) for the weak wishes to defy the laws of nature and or the will to power?

Nope. Freedom in the sense that people arrive at faith with "the free verdict of the heart"-- without the enticements and protections of men like the Grand Inquisitor. Oh and without a God one has more reason to be kind to his fellow man on earth. Since there can be no compassion for the dead.

Yes people just like you Stef. Once again there is nothing wrong in fighting for the right thing but then how do you find the right thing and identify it? And how do you shut off the critical voice or that wise and dreadful spirit in your head?

Yes people just like me. Know there's truth to the proverb that says liberals love humanity but hate their families, and conservatives love their families but hate humanity. The world is better with elite, an elite governing our countires, running our school, and curing our cancers. It's also better world without everyone loving his neighboor, since as Freud correctly pointed out, loving your neighboor, enemy, family, wife alike in the equal measure is not just impossible, but blatantly undesirable. Since loving without discrimination devalues love. Love is not all, and the bell doesn't toll for thee....

One must fully understand that all of the cool things in life (woman, wine and song) are gifts from the God to lighten the burden.

Oh please. Women, wine, and song aren't gifts from God. This is the type of belief that really annoys me, the type which says God is Everything, man is Nothing, the type that finds existence "burdensome". People make music, art, wine and everything else that's great in the world. People deserve the credit.

Welcome to the underworld Stef. Not pretty is it? I have a concept for you.... Misotheism/dystheism I leave such things to the Masons like Dostoevsky did. (PS I am no fan of it).

I don't get the first line of this. Hating God. Nope, can't hate someone who doesn't exist. Darn it.

Such is the secret. But the secret is not the truth.

The truth is we are annihilated when we die. Nothing to hope for or fear. So yes, let's gather our rosebuds while we may, listen to music, and read Dostoevsky for, to borrow another line from Herrick's poem, "old time is still a-flying." There's my intellectualism for you. There's my nousieness.

[Suvorov]

Such is the secret. But the secret is not the truth.

The truth is we are annihilated when we die. Nothing to hope for or fear. So yes, let's gather our rosebuds while we may, let's be with women, listen to music, and read Dostoevsky for, to borrow another line from Herrick's poem, "old time is still a-flying." There's my intellectualism for you. There's my nousieness.

I don't think either of you are qualified to proclaim what is the truth and what isn't.

[Childe Harold]

Well fair enough, although bear in mind only one of us is speaking from reason.

[Radio Saturday]

It's not that faith in the miraculous demands faith a God, but the other way around. More specifically, that those faithful in God also demand miracle, and can't help demanding miracle. But isn't it the ultimate test of faith that one be able to reject miracle, since having miracle confirmed or negated--the way it would be for Jesus if he jumped off the cliff--would be to succumb to temptation, would it not?. It would be the loss of faith since faith would transmute into surety, something unquestioning. To my understanding, this is not type of belief Dostoevsky or Jesus would have wanted. After all knowledge that something is certain and thus to be expected may make the chaos of the world easier to grasp, and the struggles in it more able to bear, in the same way that biologist's knowledge of evolution is neccesary to the working of his theories, but it by no means provides life with meaning.

But by this argument -- and I'm sorry for such a long quote, by the way -- Ivan then becomes to ultimate believer. He rejects all hope of the miraculous because he dislikes God, but he believes in God in spite of this. Not a practicing belief, but he does believe.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but that's the way your argument looks to me.

[underworld men]

Well fair enough, although bear in mind only one of us is speaking from reason.

Really so reason alone will suffice?

[underworld men]

Such is the secret. But the secret is not the truth.

The truth is we are annihilated when we die. Nothing to hope for or fear. So yes, let's gather our rosebuds while we may, let's be with women, listen to music, and read Dostoevsky for, to borrow another line from Herrick's poem, "old time is still a-flying." There's my intellectualism for you. There's my nousieness.

I don't think either of you are qualified to proclaim what is the truth and what isn't.

This comment is indicative of you having such a proof (the truth) and therefore validating your critique of us by said standard.

PS no matter what your response it will not invalidate the above axiom. AKA in order for you to know that we don't have the truth you would have to know the truth.

[underworld men]

<quote>
Yes people just like me. Know there's truth to the proverb that says liberals love humanity but hate their families, and conservatives love their families but hate humanity. The world is better with elite, an elite governing our countires, running our school, and curing our cancers. It's also better world without everyone loving his neighboor, since as Freud correctly pointed out, loving your neighboor, enemy, family, wife alike in the equal measure is not just impossible, but blatantly undesirable. Since loving without discrimination devalues love. Love is not all, and the bell doesn't toll for thee....
<quote/>


Damn Hemingway and Aristotle in the same post. Well I disagree, not in opposite opposition but in varied degrees.
It is not so much that all should be equal but that the world should be organic. By reason we impose ourselves on the existence on the now and all that it emcompasses.
Rather then accept things as they are. It is such that reason taken to its end would say that we should live forever as a young and potentially beautiful person.
Forever without want or need. This is not heaven this is reason imposed on heaven.

Or course this disneyworld of tomorrow filled with entertainment and flyin-by existent as you state is for the birds. I despise this sophia.

I believe and hope that one would see that being stuck at mommy's house running to the can every 15 minutes does not make one "steeped in the wisdom of experience" unless one seeks to cure constipation. I also will add that is nothing other then exchanging problems.

Once again I accept existence I will try to make the best of it while not trying to overly impose myself upon it.

But I did make me. I can not make. If I have within my mind the form of original because it is a concept does not mean that it does not exist. It just means we might be referring to the form as a different idea.