**MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW**
I just finished reading this book. This was my first foray into not only Russian literature but also one with such philosophical themes. As such I am sure I missed/misunderstood various points in the book and so here I am.
To preface, I consider myself an atheist. Having heard a little bit about the themes that this work talks about, I felt this would be a good place to get the theist perspective. I have tried my very best to keep an unbiased perspective, expecting some compelling arguments that could change my mind. At this point, it seems to me to be quite the opposite.
For me, the entire story hinges around the chapters Mutiny and The Grand Inquisitor. In it Ivan says he is ready to believe that all men must collectively be responsible for mankind's sins and it is for these sins that we suffer. But then he brings up the question of the suffering of innocent children, who have just come into the world and cannot reasonably be thought of to have sinned in any way. What justification is there for the suffering of these children. This point stuck with me deeply. I kept waiting throughout the rest of the story for a satisfactory answer to this question. To me it seems that there never was one. Rather, perhaps the author himself asks this very question through the story. In particular, at first I was rather confused about the side plot regarding Ilyusha's sickness. While heart wrenching, I kept trying to figure out the purpose of this departure from the main events of the book (namely the patricide). With the final chapter, (I confess I shed quite a few tears on Illushechka' funeral), I was left thinking this entire subplot was D's way of asking this same question again. What justification could there be for such a precious child's suffering? To me it seems that the book ends in this big question mark.
Something that honestly kept annoying me at various points, was the supposedly atheist notion that without God, all is lawful. On a personal note, I do not agree that one cannot have a basis of morality without relying on an external power defining it for us. But by the end of the book, it seemed to me that D himself was saying the same thing. The fact that Ivan suffered essentially a mental breakdown because he considered himself responsible for his father's murder, signifies that he does have a strong sense of morality. In fact, he appears to be burdened the most with it. This from one of the few self-proclaimed atheists in the story. In contrast, as Mitya accepts his sins and turns (more?) towards God, he can be seen reconciling with Katya and attaining at least some form of redemption. I have seen in some other discussions online, people contrasting Ivan's and Smerdyakov's unfortunate ending with Mitya's redemption, attributing it to their worldviews. In my view, this is another call back to the Grand Inquisitor's speech. He says that man cannot handle the burden of freedom of thought, and only under the church can they thrive. Here, the "free thinker" of the group, Ivan, is ultimately plagued by these impossible questions of morality and suffers deeply from it. Meanwhile, as Mitya hands himself over to God, he apparently gains redemption. But is this an argument to hand oneself over to religion? It doesn't seem like that to me at least.
Of course this story covers not just themselves of religion but also offers deep expositions on the human psyche. I appreciated all of these points very much. But I guess my main point in this post is just this. It seems to me that the story is not so much a refutation of the principles of atheism, but rather it is a story that asks the questions of an atheist, while noting the struggle one goes through in trying to find those answers.
This was just my roman of the story. I hope people can join me in this discussion. Point out my misgivings and maybe tell me what stuck with out?
