Greetings,
Although my free–reading time has been severely limited due to the standard semester business, I’ve nevertheless found time to continue reading Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. Aside from having the coolest name I’ve ever read (say it aloud a few times and bask in its greatness), Dostoevsky has a pretty interesting way of structuring his character development… I’m not convinced yet that the book deserves the accolades it has received, but it’s at least keeping me reading, which means I might be swayed, eventually.
In Book Three, Chapter VII (“The Controversy”), a character named Smerdyakov argues that, if one takes the Bible to be axiomatically true, it would not be a sin for an individual to renounce his faith if faced with torture or, perhaps, even death. Even though the character is largely trying to provoke others into anger with the argument, the argument itself is interesting, and I’d like to see how well you all think it works. I’m going to spell it out in as straightforward manner as possible. The edition I’m using the reference this is the 1976 Constance Garnett translation, revised and edited by Ralph E. Matlaw. I shall be referring to the tortured individual as “I” in this argument, because that is how Smerdyakov chose to argue.
1. The instant I say to a potential tormentor, “No, I’m not a Christian, and I curse my true God”, I am immediately cursed and “cut off” from the Holy Church (116)
2. However, one need not speak their apostasy; when I think it, before I had actually said it, I am already “cut off”—“accursed”. (116)
3. At the moment I become accursed, I become exactly like a heathen, and my christening is taken off me. (117)
4. If I’ve ceased becoming a Christian, I have told no lie to the enemy when they asked whether or not I was a Christian, as I had already lost my salvation before speaking. (117)
5. If I’m no longer a Christian, then I can’t renounce Christ, for I have nothing to renounce that belongs to me. (117)
6. It is said in Scripture that, if you have faith, even as a mustard seed, and tell a mountain to move into the sea, it would instantly do so. (118)
7. If a torturer tells me to convert, and I tell a mountain to move and crush the tormentor, and it does not do so, my faith wasn’t even that of a mustard seed, and thus I wouldn’t have been able to get to heaven, anyways. (119)
The intended result? If an individual is told to either renounce their religion or be tortured, and they proclaim that they will not be tortured because of x [x could be any saving act, such as the moving of a mountain], x will happen if their faith is real. If their faith is not real, one thinks that they are not saved, and thus cannot renounce their faith, because they have nothing to renounce. Thus, it is not a sin to commit apostasy (to renounce one’s faith) under the threat of torture, because one has nothing to renounce.
Thoughts? Is his argument good, and does it prove what he thinks it proves? Is it simply a word game, or is there something there?
Friday, September 25, 2009
The Apostasy of Smerdyakov
Posted by Zach Sherwin at 12:54 PM
Labels: argument, dostoevsky, philosophy of religion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
1-5 and 6-7 seem like two different arguments.
1-5 I agree with because it makes sense that you wouldn't say something without accepting it in you mind(heart) first. Then again, when people are pushed pass their physical and mental limits then they don't act like themselves, especially when tortured. I think this is confirmed by what we hear from the military now a days and just that it is commonly agreed upon. So while 1-5 may seem right initially, I think Smerdyakov expects the man to act like a superhuman.
That brings me to 6 and 7 because he expects the Christian to act superhuman, according to a literal interpretation of the Bible. It is obvious that that particular scripture is being figurative so he is wrong to assume that the Christian should be able to do that.
I think both the arguments get at an idea of a way Christians are supposed to be. It would seem to me for the most part that the only difference between Christians and people who arent Christians is their motivation. One claims to be motivated by an all-powerful source and the other by morality.
While theoretically, Christians should be able to do some maricles, but not necessarily moving mountains, I don't think they are readily distinguishable from people who aren't Christians. Does this mean Christianity is false? No, I think it means that Christians should be looked at in a different way than how Smerdyakov portrayed them. But if he comes from the turn of the 20th century time period, then that might have been the common way to view Christians.
Please, I would love to here everyones responses to my thoughts.
-Aubrey
There is a more important difference between Christians and non-Christians than just motivation. Just as an animal is animated and a stone is not, the Christian soul is in a very real way spiritually animated, and the soul of the non-Cristian isn't. The reality of that difference leads to the reality of the difference in motivation as well. A true Christian doesn't simply claim to be motivated by an all-powerful source. His spiritual animation gives rise to volitional abilities that the non-Christian is incapable of. Changing your motivation is actually impossible in any meaningful way. I can switch from Coke to Pepsi, but the true motivation behind that switch remains unchanged. The superficial change in preference is simply a resolution, perhaps based on new information, to better satisfy the original motivation. We are actually enslaved to our wills, and only a real source of liberty can enable true Christian obedience. Without real freedom, we are all doomed to empty claims.
In consequence, the non-Christian may be looking for a real difference where none exists. Many of those who claim to be Christians lack true spiritual animation. That leads non-Christians to believe that there is no real difference. Before a non-Christian can make the distinction between true Christians and fakes, he has to first acknowledge that such a real distinction is possible. However, his world view tends to deny that from the start. He proceeds with the assumption that there is no real difference and that anyone who claims to be a Christian is just as much a Christian as the next. Based on that assumption, the lack of faith demonstrated by fake Christians only strengthens his presupposition that there is no real difference. He concludes that anyone can become a Christian simply by claiming to be.
I basically agree with Smerdyakov. You can't renounce something that you don't have. Does that mean that all who deny Christ don't have it? According to the Bible, no. Peter denied Christ, and Christ himself was a witness to Peter's faith. If you truly have faith, you can't lose it. Smerdyakov is arguing against a false humanist doctrine that teaches that our faith ultimately depends upon us. That teaching has managed to adulterate true Christian doctrine throughout history. However, the Bible teaches that God ultimately determines our destiny. All of our actions are an outworking of the current state of our souls. Since I have no power over my final destiny, my words can in no way affect it. That's not to say that my words aren't an indication as to what, in fact, that destiny is. Our words are a window to our heart, and even a true Christian has little reason to believe that his faith is real should he deny Christ. However, just as Peter did, the true Christian will ultimately find God's mercy.
Post a Comment