Was Dostoevsky Correct?

by Rapunzel 11 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Rapunzel
    Rapunzel

    The Russian writer, Fyodor Dostoevsky, once wrote: "If there is no God, everything is permitted." In these eight words, Dostoevsky encapsulates a complex theological argument, I believe. Of course, these words of his are open to interpretation, and different people will have different opinions and come to various conclusions. However, it seems to me that Dostoevsky seems to be establishing a connection between atheism - "If there is no God, [or rather, no belief in God] - and antinomianism.

    The term antinomianism is derived from the Greek prefix, anti, meaning "against", and nomos, meaning "law" [or "custom"]. In its general sense, it denotes lawlessness.

    As I interpret his words, Dostoevsky seems to being saying that atheism leads to lawlessness. Dostoevsky seems to view religion as functioning as a sort of damper, or check, or brake upon human conduct. His claim seems to be that religion is needed in order to impede and hold back lawlessness; without the idea of God [or the fear of God], people's conduct and behavior would enter into a downward cycle of ethical nihilism, depravity and debauchery. Basically, people would think to themselves - "Well, since there's no chance of my being punished after I die, and no prospect for eternal reward, then I may as well do as I damn well please."

    However, throughout history, the converse has also been true; that's to say that there have been people who claim that they do anything they please precisely because they enjoy the benefits of God's "undeserved kindness" [i.e. "grace"]. They feel that their sins do not "accumulate" like those of other people in that all the sins of believers are forgiven. So, could it be that both atheism and intense religious belief can each lead to antinomianism?

    Antinomianism is a more specific, theological sense. In theology, the term designates the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities. In its theological sense, antinomianism is diametrically opposed to legalism - the idea that obedience to a code of law is necessary for salvation.

    Religious groups and sects very rarely claim that they themselves are antinomian. However, various religious groups often claim that other sects and groups are antinomian. The term, antinomian, becomes an epithet that one religious groups hurls at a competing religious group.

    Above, I mentioned the terms "ethics" and "morality." It should be noted that both terms are derived from Greek words meaning "customs" or "norms" [ethos and mores, respectively]. What is "moral" or "ethical" is often simply what is the accepted norm or custom.

    So, Some questions that I would like to ask are:

    1.) Do you agree with Dostoevsky?

    2) Is there a connection between either theism (or atheism) and ethcis/morality? If so, what is the connection?

    3.) Do ethics and morality issue from religion? Or rather, is it the other way around: is relgion in general based upon a pre-existing moral or ethical sense that is innate among humans?

  • Octarine Prince
    Octarine Prince

    I have an MBA and a genius IQ, and I am intimidated by this thread.

    This is a Saturday, hon.

  • Robdar
    Robdar

    1.) Do you agree with Dostoevsky?

    No

    2) Is there a connection between either theism (or atheism) and ethcis/morality? If so, what is the connection?

    No.

    3.) Do ethics and morality issue from religion? Or rather, is it the other way around: is relgion in general based upon a pre-existing moral or ethical sense that is innate among humans?

    Although I believe that an ethical sense and a sense of justice are annate among some mammals, I also believe the two are seperate.

  • Robdar
    Robdar

    Are you taking a philosophy class? Dont you think this is better discussed over a cuppa joe?

  • R.Crusoe
    R.Crusoe

    6th connection cut!

    I'm back!

    Whoever the guy is talks some sense with his statements about no god and religious rules becoming obsolete as a holistic lifestyle framework!

    But that does not predispose all humans to go ahead and do wrongs for the sake of it! Many humans are natural empaths and will tend to help others irrespective any belief or any need for a god after their death!

    And what is morality if it is not that defined by churches?

    You use vocanulary with negative conotations attached! Flawed vocabulary ought not to be used to analyse what morality is!

    For example any pleasureable experience which harms none could be considered purely a mutually giving interaction by an outside observer absent any notion of indoctrination - so calling obcene what is being enjoyed by two or more individuals is a very subjective and indoctrinated observation!

    And the crux of the debate lies in the hidden agendas!

    If this then that!

    So we need religion!

    So everyone must be conned for the greater good!

    And even killed for it!

    And all manner of human depravity imposed upon those who disagree!

    So I would like to chat to this guy to say whether or not I agree with him but I hope you get a sense of my thought from the above even if I wandered from your questions which I am prone to doing!

  • DanTheMan
    DanTheMan

    The idea that "Without God, everything is permissible" has a strong resonance with believers. But, it's only the idea of god that they're referring to. The pragmatic value of belief has no bearing on the question of whether or not Gods exists. So, to me, it's all a moot point. People aren't born to virgins. Water does not turn to wine. Red Seas do not part. And there is no invisible superman watching over us. And as the centuries go by, there will be less and less people who believe in these ancient superstitions. So, time will tell where post-God morality will take us but there's no turning back.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    First, I would say that Dostoevsky's characters say a lot of antagonistic things and he only identifies partly with any of them -- that's the superiority of the novel writer over the philosopher. He doesn't have to decide, once and for all, and he knows he could only do so against himself -- in part.

    Second, I think there is a connection but it is far from univocal. The "good and bad" of the OT prophet doesn't correspond to the "clean and unclean" of the priest, and, in a sense, our notion of "morality" is a hybrid progeny of both. NT antinomianism (e.g. Paul) is not amoral, but it constructs its morality otherwise (on a strange mix of "divine love," pragmatism and conventional values -- everything is permitted, everything is not useful).

    Third, I doubt it's either / or. Religion has certainly been an instrument for "moral" control, even though it cannot be reduced to that.

    Btw, mores is Latin.

  • BizzyBee
    BizzyBee

    Are you trying to get us to write your thesis for you?

    1.) Do you agree with Dostoevsky?

    No. His statement implies that God requires something of us. But we can we can only guess what that might be. What if God wants us to be free and permits us to do anything we wish?

    2) Is there a connection between either theism (or atheism) and ethcis/morality? If so, what is the connection?

    Yes, there is a connection with theism and morality - if one accepts along with a belief in God that He has certain expectations of us. Atheism, not so much.

    3.) Do ethics and morality issue from religion? Or rather, is it the other way around: is relgion in general based upon a pre-existing moral or ethical sense that is innate among humans?

    Depends on which religion, but generally I believe in an innate sense of right and wrong.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    This statement commits a fundamental syllogistic error. It starts with the premise that "If there is a God, not everything is permitted". It therefore makes the argument:

    If P, then not Q.

    Not P

    Therefore, Q

    That's an invalid argument. The contrapositive argument is what would be valid:

    If P, then not Q.

    Q

    Therefore, not P

    In other words, if it already was the case that everything was permitted, and if your premise is that this would not be the case if there is a God, then you could argue that there is not a God. But it is invalid to argue that everything would be permitted if there is not a God. It prematurely precludes another precondition for Q, such as the following:

    If P, then not Q.

    If R, then not Q.

    Not P

    R

    Therefore, not Q

  • Robdar
    Robdar

    I love reading Leolaia's posts!

    Sigh.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit