2 Types of Atheism

[Ivan]

Ok please bear with me!

I think that there are two types of atheists and I think that Dostoevsky attacks one and plays with the ideas of the other.

Type 1:
This first type of atheist relies on logic, science and his reason.  He or she generally has a utilitarian mathematical morality and still believes that truth exists.  Truth can be reached via the means listed above (logic, science, math, etc).  This is the type of atheist which Dostoevsky explicitly deals with... this of course being the Russian socialist, the Russian "nihilist," and the Russian atheist of the 19th Century.
When asked whether or not they believe in God these atheists respond with a "No."  They support this "No" with a sequence of logical conclusions and/or they refer to conclusions based on scientific studies.

Type 2:
The second type of atheist does not believe that foundations exist, they believe that logic, math and science are merely tools to define relations of beings.  These relations represent no "truth," just simply relationships...
When asked if they believe in God these atheists say "No."  This "No" has no sort of evidence surrounding it, no logical conclusions or faith based theories.  Why then do they say "No?"  Because they have no reason to believe in such a being.  These atheists have no means of proving that God does not exist but they also do not have the means to prove that a small, invisible green elf in outerspace exists.  

This is why I have problems when people relate Raskolnikov (or other like characters) to existentialism or Nietzschean philosophies!  These (Nietzschean)philosophies deal with the second type of atheist... the type that Dostoevsky does NOT deal with.  Dostoevsky parodies these (first type of) atheistic characters inasmuch as he is showing the impossibility of building a worldview via science and reason!
He does NOT have much to say about the Nietzschean or existential atheist!  This of course is not fault of Dostoevsky, he was a political writer who was responding to socialist movements that consisted mainly of the first type of atheist.  If Dostoevsky was more philosophical and less political it is quite possible that we would have found an ubermensch character that rivaled Dostoevsky's knights of faith!
Unfortunately I do not think Dostoevsky stepped outside of his playground, outside of dueling with his enemies, that were these (type 1!) Russian socialists.  

Because of this attack of type one atheists Dostoevsky agrees with philosophers like Nietzsche but because he was working with within the structures of only TWO worldviews (Christianity and atheism type 1) his heroic alternative is Kierkegaard's knight of faith!
This is how Dostoevsky elegantly does and does not fit into existentialism.  He supports their breach of science but he takes a reverse step which leads back to Christianity, not beyond science.  I lovingly call this the Kierkegaardian two step.

[Ivan]

was once talking to a guy (who was also an agnostic, mind you) who told me that an agnostic is just a cowardly atheist....what do you think?[/

Ok now I feel like I can suitably answer this question.
First, I use to whole-heartedly agree with your friend.  But you can tell him that if atheists weren't lazy they would know that the idea of foundations and truth originated in religion.  And that in science you are pursuing the religious goal of ultimate truth.  If they truly were not lazy they would have found out that science is constructed only out of relationships!
Ask him to give you a definition of knowledge and you can be sure that whatever he came up with has been made fun of since Hume.  Of course truth is still pursued (just look at the whole analytic field of philosophy!) but only because philosophers like Hume are gracefully ignored.

Atheists think that they aren't lazy because they pursue intellectual fields in the search for knowledge.
The agnostics or the agnostic atheist (which is how I shrink my type 2 definition of atheism) isn't lazy, they are just on to something that the other atheists aren't.

[Ivan]

Do you guys think I'm crazy?  Do you think that Dostoevsky actually does deal with both types of atheists?  If you do, please provide evidence!

Can you even make the distinction between these two types of atheists? or no?

[Golyadkin]

I think you're crazy, but crazy in a good way.

[axon]

I can somewhat agree with your types Ivan...I just have a problem identifying the "type2" character in any of his novels, well maybe Kirilov from the Devils...but other then that I'm at a loss. So please list some characters who exhibit these traits.
EDIT:: now that I'm writing the second part of the response to your post I've begun thinking about the Underground man (uman)...and would definitely put him in this category...and it is quite evident that D sympathizes with the UMAN (IMO D is the UMAN, or many parts of him), but his ultimate critique comes in the fact that the uman refuses love, and ultimately Christ....damn, now that I think about this further, the UMAN also falls into type 1....actually I think that the uman might be rather difficult to categorize, and might be better left out of this discussion

As for type 1, IMO D uses similar characteristics in many of his characters, but not necessarily condemning them. He gives people of type 1 a chance to change (eg. Raskolnikov), and a chance to go onto the right path.

[Ivan]

Dostoevsky attacks one and plays with the ideas of the other.

Sorry for this being a misleading and short thought when it is very important to what I was trying to say!

Dostoevsky attacks type one, as I said, and what I when I said that he plays with the ideas of type 2 I was mostly referring to Notes From Underground.
Even though this underground man is the impossibility living via type 1, he refutes his own actions and ideaologies by hinting at type 2.  The most obvious piece of evidence I can think of right now is that quote I've been plastering all over this website:
"Two times two is four has a cocky look; it stands across your path, arms akimbo, and spits. I agree that two times two is four is an excellent thing; but if we're going to start praising everything, then two times two is five is sometimes also a most charming little thing." (Dostoevsky, Notes From Undergound, Part I, Chapter IX)

This underground man worships the idea of 2x2=4, yet he challenges himself and his own worldview by hinting at the worldview that surrounds type 2 atheism AND not by hinting at the worldview that surrounds Christianity.
I found this interesting and Notes From U. is really the only work where I can point to sections and make the claim that he "plays with the ideas of type 2 atheism."  I have only read 3 Dostoevsky works so I'm still looking for more...

I don't have much to say about the characters in the Devils as I haven't yet finished it, but I'll try to give some input once I have.

The UMAN is a great character to discuss because the answer to your confussion (hopefully) is:
The UMAN is type 1, yet he explicitly satirizes himself... hinting at the superiority of type 2.  Which type is he? Type 1, but the thoughts of type 2 are not far removed from his playful ideas that contradict his actions...
And the more interesting things he has to say are these critiques of his own life and worldview--these critiques come from the stand point of type 2!

He gives people of type 1 a chance to change

I completely agree.  But I wouldn't say it is the right path that they've turned to  ... It is just simply the better of the two evils in which Dostoevsky was faced.

[axon]

>>This underground man worships the idea of 2x2=4

i really don't think so...but I'll need some more time to develo the explanation....probably wed. I'm just letting you know, and to wait I have a couple exams on wed, so monday and tuesday will be devoted to them....see you wed.

[Ivan]

The Underground Man is the nihilism that follows from decadence.  This decadence is perpetrated by science, math, utilitarianism, religion, socialism, capitalism (etc).

This character is encompassed by this nihilism specifically because he woships things like 2x2=4...
He has mentioned the difficulty he has crossing barriers or brick walls (2x2=4 being a wall) and only mentions 2x2=5 being an honorable thing, satirically -- he's making fun of his situation by defining his inabilities.

[axon]

sorry about not replying in such a long time Ivan, but I was thinking of a way to formulate a response. Because I do not agree with the statement that the UMan is obsessed and worships 2x2=4, I came up with a question for you as an answer....weird ey? I bet the UMan would like it  

anyways, do you think there is any correlation between the structure/style of the first part of the novel and the idea that is repeated over and over again of 2x2=4 ? if so what is it?

I don't want to impose my thoughts about it on you just yet, so I'll wait for your response.

Great topic BTW...I like that we are going a little deeper then usual in our speculations.

[Ivan]

I came up with a question for you as an answer

Foul play! Foul play!  

I've read that the sloppy style is part of the satire.  Dostoevsky loved to rag on other Russian authors... He had a special dislike for Chernyshevsky, his style, and his ideas and thus created a Chernyshevskian (*made-up word   ) character that did not know how to write.

Whoaaa... I just realized I was answering a question you didn't ask, let me start over!

At a second glance I'm not sure I understand your question, but let me take a shot at it anyways.
Being obsessed with 2x2=4 is his Chernyshevskian character.  The sloppiness of the first part is showing the futility of such an obsession (satire).  I'm guessing you meant that since the first part isn't structurally sound, how could he love structure?  My answer is, like always, satire/satire/satire.  There are two forces at play here, the Chernyshevskian (God I love that word!) force and the satirical force.

And so my friend, may the forces be with you.  

[Ivan]

I'll try and find the reference for you that speaks of the structure of the first part as being satire.  But now I must sleep!

[axon]

>>I'll try and find the reference for you that speaks of the structure of the first part as being satire.  

D started writing the Notes as a satire (which appeared in a magazine) and refutation of Chernashevsky's book and ideas....but it turned out somthing much more than just satire. Therefore, satire is a byproduct of the finished worked in my opinion.

[Ivan]

Therefore, satire is a byproduct of the finished worked in my opinion.

If it started out a satire, like you said, how could it then be a byproduct?  It seems more likely that anything that came out of this work was a byproduct of the satire...
A satire just isn't a refutation, it involves tons of its own claims as well.  What makes a satire different from other works is in the way these claims are brought about.  So could satire even be a byproduct??  

[Violinest]

I'M SO DIZZY! lol! Ya'll are awsome! Great points to think about!

[Screamgrip]

Great Discussion guys Keep it going.....

I hope this is the right place to ask this but.....How different were D's motives from Tolstoy's in advocating a form of christianity? I know they were different as much as one man's and especially one writer's can differ from another's. And why did these great russian writers, especially in their old age, turn to this? I mean, why did both of them? Was this connected in any way to the underground of anti czarist movements attracting the youth in Russia? Or was it because these men conformed in their own way?
I read somewhere that "all men when young desire to change the world they have to live in and when old reminisce about the "good old" days."