TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 2
The Problem of Evil and Dostoyevsky ...................................................................................................... 2
Dostoyevskys Theodicy .............................................................................................................................. 4
Ivans Identification of the Issue ....................................................................................................................... 4
Dostoyevskys Theodicy ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Ivan ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Zosima ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Alyosha ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
How Effective Is It? ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Augustinian and Irenaean Theodicy: Was Dostoyevsky a Magpie? ................................................... 7
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................... 9
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................. 11
INTRODUCTION
This investigation attempts to answer the question: To what extent is Fyodor Dostoyevsky an effective and
original theodicist? The problem of evil is arguably the most damning criticism of religion: if we cannot reconcile
God and evil, then we undermine the cornerstone of many peoples lives, thus it is significant that we attempt to
answer this question. Focusing on Dostoyevskys approaches is interesting as it takes a different angle from his
magnum opus The Brothers Karamazov. The research question was arrived at because it enabled the study of
two fascinating topicsthe paradox of evil and Fyodor Dostoyevskys overlooked philosophyand unifies them
in an original manner. The context of his response is a modern approachcontrary to the ancient, but
ubiquitous Irenaean and Augustinian approaches. The hypothesis held in this investigation is that Dostoyevsky
takes many cues from his predecessors and most likely can be faulted for many of the same reasons.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AND DOSTOYEVSKY

The problem of evil and suffering has plagued theists since the dawn of religious thought. It follows that the God
of western classical theism cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent in a world where evil and suffering
is rife. This is most clearly outlined by David Hume who reiterated Epicurus in an inconsistency triad, which
essentially states:1

1. God is omnibenevolent.
2. God is omnipresent.
3. Our world is full of evil and suffering.

The ramifications of this triad are that only two of the three statements can be correct, hence onepotentially
moreis false. For example, God could be omnibenevolent, but not benevolent meaning that evil could exist, but
not all three.2 This issue has vast implications; evils existence suggests that God either does not exist, or his
character is not concurrent with humanitys general beliefs, which undermines the keystone of traditional
theism. Theodicy is a branch of philosophy that attempts to address the issue and consequently religion
etymologically speaking, theodicy comes from the Greek words theos meaning God,3 and dike, meaning
justice.4 Theodicy defends the righteousness of God in a world ridden with evil and suffering.

19th century Russian polymath Fyodor Dostoyevsky was, and continues to be, a major player in the field of
theodicy. He was born into a deeply Russian Orthodox Christian family, and despite his beliefs he was troubled
by the paradox.5 In his words evil could only be comprehended by the heart, not by the mind, 6 however he

1 Hume, p186-7
2 Haslanger, 2013
3 Online Etymology Dictionary
4 Online Etymology Dictionary
5 Weil, 2012
6 Gibson, 1973

Extended Essay: Dostoyevsky and Evil 2

accepted that this, essentially an ineffability argument, was not sufficient, and consequently he sought to resolve
the issue by more academically rigorous means. 7 Throughout his career he contended with many political, social,
and philosophical issues in his impressive literary catalogue, however it was not until his last novel, The Brothers
Karamazov that he attempted to grapple with the problem of evil.

Two of the most famous theodicies come from fifth century theologian Augustine of Hippo and fourth century
French theologian, Irenaeus.8 The theodicies of both Augustine and Irenaeus are by far the most influential of all,
and often the basis for the many less successful theodicies that have appeared in the millennia and a half since
their publication. Since, Dostoyevsky was active no less than 1500 years after the death of Irenaeus, it is
interesting to examine the theodicy that he presents in order to determine whether he, like many other
theodicists, simply repackages their theodicies in a more abstract manner in order to be less susceptible to
criticism, or whether he takes a different approach the issue. Furthermore, once we determine this, the question
of whether he succeeds in his task becomes apparent.

In The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoyevsky accounts for evil using polyphony, 9 a stylistic technique used where
different characters represent different doctrines and arguments. Compared to Irenaeus and Augustine this is a
rather alternative method or theodicy; however it is very much in line with Dostoyevskys general formula for
philosophical discussion. It is also worth noting that contrary to Irenaeus and Augustine, Dostoyevsky is
primarily a writer of fiction, despite the strong philosophical overtones in his work. Furthermore, rather than
arguing from the perspective of an ardent theist, Dostoyevsky initially presents the argument of evil against the
nature of God so that the theist and atheist are on equal footing. 10 He then proceeds to argue from the theists
perspective. By doing this, we instantly see that Dostoyevsky already creates a more appealing argument than
Irenaeus or Augustine as he attempts to remove the religious bias from the debate, and in doing so weakens the
standpoint of the theist, so that ultimately when the theist responds, the theodicy is proven to be stronger since
it overcomes a considerably greater and more well reasoned attack on religion than Irenaeus or Augustine had
to. Additionally, it is worth noting that according to Mikhail Bakhtin, a 20 th century Russian literary theorist,
Dostoyevskys characters are free peoplecharacters that have there own voices and do not just voice
Dostoyevskys views in that they often disagree with their creator [Dostoyevsky], which if we are to believe
this, suggests that the writer tussles with the issue just as much as the reader. 11

7 Forbes, 2003
8 Tooley, 2002
9 Wellek, 1980
10 Forbes, 2003
11 Bakhtin, p208

Extended Essay: Dostoyevsky and Evil 3

DOSTOYEVSKYS THEODICY

IVANS IDENTIFICATION OF THE ISSUE

In the polyphony, Dostoyevsky makes the initial argument against religion through Ivan Karamazov, the second
son in the Karamazov family who is an intellectual and arguably an atheist. Ivan is bothered by the amount of evil
and suffering in the world. He presents his argument against theodicy in two parts.

Firstly, he claims that it is possible that suffering on earth is necessary in order to achieve divine congruencean
equivalence in nature to the divinethe is not worth the tears of that one tortured child. Alyosha, the youngest
brother and the voice of religion in Dostoyevskys polyphony is disdainful of this view, however he also rejects
Gods plan in the name of the unnecessary suffering of blameless children. Ivan also claims that man was born a
rebel, thus suggesting that God is not responsible for the pain inflicted on innocent children, but the free will
that God grants us is responsible.

The argument also comes in Ivans poem, The Grand Inquisitor12. The poem is set in Spain during the 16 th
century at the peak of the Spanish Inquisition. An old cardinal visits a man imprisoned for performing miracles:
Jesus Christ. He had been arrested as the people saw him as a saviour. The cardinal accuses Christ of devaluing
happiness under freedom claiming that men do not use their agency for happiness but generally create more
pain for themselves, which was supposedly intensified by Christs actions. In essence, Christ may have been
freeing people, but it would lead to more pain. Additionally, Christ is accused of performing miracles that are
unachievable for man, and the cardinal claims that the only way man can achieve divine harmony is if he forfeits
freewill to the church. Hence, Ivan shows that it is the church, not Christ that leads to salvation and joy and
moreover this comes with a loss of freedom. Essentially, the poem postulates that an elite minority benefit from
Gods plan for humanity, while the masses are simply too weak to triumph over evil and suffer pointlessly. In
simple terms, Ivan believes that the end of divine harmony is not worth the suffering.13

DOSTOYEVSKYS THEODICY
Dostoyevskys theodicy is constructed through three characters of the polyphony: Ivan, through his self-
criticism; Alyosha, through his response to Ivans poem, and Father Zosima, a distinguished member of the clergy
and Alyoshas mentor through the reading of his teachings.

IVAN
Ivan self-critically postulates that our concept of God and the concept of evil are impossible to reconcile in the
human mind, as they are two parallel lines, which according Euclid can never meet on Earth.14 This is

12Dostoyevsky, p395 (The Grand Inquisitor)

13Dostoyevsky, p395 (The Grand Inquisitor)
14 Dostoyevsky, p365 (The Brothers Make Friends)

Extended Essay: Dostoyevsky and Evil 4

compounded by Dostoyevskys belief that matters of God can only be reasoned with the heart, and not the
mind15. Throughout the novel there are continuous references to the unreliability of reason and logic, most
notably when Ivan proclaims beware of the miscarriage of justice 16, implying that decisions made based purely
on logic, much like a jurys verdict, can be erroneous.

ZOSIMA
Initially Zosima says that in a great mystery of life, 17 humanitys spirit always overcomes suffering, defeating
evil and generally our grief passes gradually into tender joy.18 He argues that humans always respond to
suffering by evaluating their situation, which consequently sees them looking to improve things. These two ideas
combined should create a more harmonious existence where evil is absent.

He also argues that while the suffering imposed by evil is terrible, it is actually necessary to reach an even higher
greatness. In a sense, triumphing over evil allows us to be even better as if the world had been created in a
perfect state it would be less beautiful and good 19 and the challenge of evil gives humanity a task to overcome.
This ties in with Dostoyevskys rigorous analysis of salvation, which is also explored in Crime and Punishment.
His philosophy on this front is summed up by the quote: over one repentant sinner there is more joy in heaven
than ten righteous men20. Zosima uses the example from of the Book of Job where God raises Job again, gives
him wealth again21, reiterating his point that evil is necessary for progression.

ALYOSHA
Alyosha argues through allusion to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Firstly, he says that God truly understands evil
having withstood it through the crucifixion of his son. Furthermore, in reference to Ivans poem, Alyosha states
that Jesus, who forgave the old cardinal, who in turn freed him, proves that even the vilest of people can be
redeemed proving that the evil is therefore necessary. In essence, evil is there to ensure that even that every one
on earth, all of whom have sinned, or will sin, can achieve divine harmony, not just the righteous.

HOW EFFECTIVE IS IT?

If we combine the views of Ivan, Zosima, and Alyosha, we have a good understanding of Dostoyevskys theodicy.
The collective arguments do have certain strengths, the greatest being its existential value. By essentially saying
humans must overcome their evil and suffering, he gives humans a purpose, an issue that plagued many thinkers
at the time. However, there is also an issue within this to do with atheism, if one rejects Gods existence, they
once again are subjected to existential uncertainty.

15 Gibson, p9
16 Dostoyevsky, p1179 (And There Was No Murder Either)
17 Dostoyevsky, p451 (Father Zosima and His Visitors)
18 Dostoyevsky, p451 (Father Zosima and His Visitors)
19 Kraeger, p9
20 Dostoyevsky, p72 (Peasant Women Who Have Faith)
21 Dostoyevsky, p450 (Father Zosima and His Visitors)

Extended Essay: Dostoyevsky and Evil 5

Another strength of the argument is that it points out that there are many incoherencies in logic and reason,
which can lead to false conclusions. However, the example of a court jury has problems, chief of them being the
fact that judicial errors tend not to be made on flawed logic, but on weak evidence.

However, there are still a number of issues with Dostoyevskys theodicy. For example, Ivans Euclidian argument
is based on our naturalistic experiences of the world, which have been deciphered empirically. However, God
seems to have absolutely no undisputed empirical evidence, 22 and thus the ineffability argument seems far-
fetched. Evidently, this issue cannot be resolved as the ineffability argument can be reapplied to any response to
it, and furthermore an argument from revelation can provide counterevidence.

Zosimas argument is also flawed in two ways. Firstly, the Bible states that Jesus died for the sins of mankind so
that they could achieve moral perfection. This suggests that there is no need to suffer, or to even attempt to
overcome suffering as in the end, mans moral perfection is guaranteed. Secondly, the idea that the suffering of
everyone, especially Ivans example of innocent children, poses the question as to whether the ends justify the
means. The classic example of the Holocaust throws this argument into doubt. Zosimas argument slips again
when he says all grief eventually subsides in favour of joy. While it is true that people can overcome suffering, it
does not follow that it is necessary. Additionally, saying that suffering eventually passes does not really compel
one to accept that it is necessary.

In response to Alyoshas argument we can say that Gods has suffering through the crucifixion is a weak token of
empathy. Secondly, the idea that evil is present so everyone can be redeemed not just a few people is insufficient
as it is somewhat tautological. If God stopped the existence of evil, there would be no cruel sinners that needed to
be forgiven in the first place. Furthermore, if God allows children to suffer for the greater good of humanity,
surely he is using the children as a means to his own end, and not for the higher harmony. Moreover, the
argument implies that the suffering of the children can be ameliorated, however this would entail the children
(or their parents) to forgive the torturers, yet this would be tough. Also, this would require the torturer to repent
for their sins, however if they did not, or even if they did, but were not forgiven, they would supposedly be cast
into hell, and punished for eternity. This would mean the children would have suffered completely needlessly as
the wrongdoer would not achieve higher harmony thus we can say that even if the suffering of innocent children
was necessarywe have already established this as a spurious claimit would not necessarily follow that it
would be successful in its end of helping those who were truly vile being forgiven.

The single greatest flaw in Dostoyevskys theodicy is that at no point is the entire argument unified. As we can
see there is a significant part within Zosimas teachings, but that alone is still rather lightweight. It means that it
is up to the reader to unify it, which leaves us with a degree of uncertainty as to what Dostoyevsky actually
thinks about the matter. He argues using the medium of a novel and thus it would be difficult to unify the
argument without detracting from the story and character development. However, as already mentioned,

22 Of course, one could consider religious experiences, however these are too problematic to be used as
irrefutable a posteriori evidence.
Extended Essay: Dostoyevsky and Evil 6
Bakhtins idea of character independence combined with the use of polyphony might suggest that this disorder is
actually intentional with the aim of emphasising Dostoyevskys uncertainty on the matter.

AUGUSTINIAN AND IRENAEAN THEODICY: WAS DOSTOYEVSKY A MAGPIE?

The next question is whether his theodicy is in fact a different perspective on the problem of evil or whether it is
simply a repackaginga less impressive one at thatof the two theodicies by the scholars that were most likely
to have influenced him: Augustine and Irenaeus.

Augustines argument consists of the idea that evil does not actually exist; he claims it a mere privation of
good,23 or in his words privatio boni.24 He postulates that God created the world and it was good,25 however,
Adam and Eve chose to turn away from God in The Fall which then in turn planted a seed of sin which was
passed down from generation to generationthis is referred to as Original Sin. 26 Augustine refers to humans
as causers of moral evil.27 He blames natural disasters or natural evil 28 on fallen angels. Although, this idea is
still the same as that of moral evil as it stems back to God granting freewill. However, Ivan does not reference
this type of evilhe focuses on humans acts.

There is much parallel with Dostoyevskys argument suggesting his is not original. Dostoyevskys assertion that
there are innocent children suggests that he disagrees with the notion of Original Sin, however Ivan says that
man is born a rebel29 something that neither Alyosha nor Zosima deny. This creates a vast amount of confusion
over whether the innocent children are truly innocent. If they are, the problems with defending them remain, but
if not we see that numerous incoherencies with the Bible start to form. The claim in the Book of Jeremiah that
every one shall die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes starkly contradicts the idea that man is born
a rebel, however Augustines Original Sin affirms that they are.

Furthermore, Alyoshas claim that Jesus forgiving the vile cardinal parallels the idea of Jesus being the atoning
sacrifice for our sins30 as per the Book of John, both shows a different idea concerning Christ. Alyoshas suggests
that Christs death occurred so that humans could understand forgiveness, while the Book of John suggests that
original sin died with Christ. This confusion not only weakens Augustines argument, but it delivers a damaging
blow to Dostoyevskys.

Jesus aside, there is another incoherence in the Bible concerning Gods creation of a supposedly perfect
mankind. Had they actually been perfect, they would have never used their free will to rebel.

23 Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2005

24 Arlanch & Henckel-Donnersmarck, 2010
25 King James Authorised Version, Genesis, 1, 31
26 International Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
27 International Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
28 International Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
29 Dostoyevsky, p395 (The Grand Inquisitor)
30 King James Authorised Version, John 1, 2, 2

Extended Essay: Dostoyevsky and Evil 7

On a side note, Augustines theory of original sin is also flawed on a scientific level as considering the theory of
evolution; Adam and Eve were unlikely to have existed. In terms of Dostoyevsky, this criticism is difficult to
apply, as we cannot be sure whether the rebel that man was born as is in reference to Eden, or simply human
nature. It is likely that Ivan references the latter, but Alyosha and Zosima, who do not say otherwise, would
reference the former.

Having concluded that Dostoyevsky has used both the free will and the original sin aspects of Augustines
argument we see that he has fallen victim to the panoply of problems that it possesses, thus further invalidating
his theodicy. Now, we turn to Irenaeus to see if Dostoyevsky has done likewise with him.

Irenaeus book Against Heresies makes a series of arguments in order to defend Christian belief against its many
critics.31 His theodicy consists of the idea that while mankind may have been created in Gods image, he was not
created in his likeness.32 He continues to say that earth is a testing ground where mankind can make mistakes,
become truly moral and therefore grow closer to God, in what is referred to as closing the epistemic distance
on, what John Hick calls, the vale of soul making33. For Irenaeus, the purpose of evil is to help humanity to
understand that they must seek to relieve all pain in a character building process.34 As Richard Swinburne puts
it: we would never learn the art of goodness in a world designed as a hedonistic paradise 35 which suggests the
fact that Earth is not paradigmatic, means that we have more room to grow morally.

Once again, there is a strong parallel between Irenaeus theodicy and Dostoyevskys. Much like Augustines
theodicy contradicts Bible. The Bible claims God created a perfect mankind, but Irenaeus holds a similar view
to Dostoyevsky seeing mankind as rebellioushardly a trait associating with perfection. In fact, the Bible offers
numerous examples of mankind not being perfect. Nevertheless, the string of incoherencies between the
theodicies and the bible, as well as the Bible and itself chip away at the already instable foundation on which
Abrahamic faith is built on, and if we take Dostoyevskys theodicy to simply be a repackaged version of the
aforementioned too, then he falls victim too. Not only does this show Dostoyevskys theodicy to not be original,
but also it suggests that it is very weak.

Secondly, Irenaeus theodicy lessens the importance of Christs sacrifice as it claims that the weakening of the
epistemic distance between God and man is assured simply because man makes mistakes and commits evil.
Furthermore, the concept of making mistakes, as a means of becoming better seems slightly flawed as the
importance of making mistakes can only be justified if one learns from them, and in the case of evil, one repents.
However, mankind might continue to make villainous mistakes, and simply by considering global issues, we can
see that humanity is no closer to repenting for what it has done since the time when Irenaeus was writing. This
very much links in with Dostoyevskys idea that humans can only progress once we have made mistakes,

31 Philosophy Online
32 Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2005
33 The Problem of Evil and John Hicks Soul-Making Theodicy , 2009
34 Philosophy Online
35 Muljad, p34

Extended Essay: Dostoyevsky and Evil 8

however we have already established that is not always the case, further detracting from the originality and
quality Dostoyevskys theodicy.

Thirdly, Irenaeus implies what John Hick refers to as the epistemic distance36 is guaranteed to weaken,
and if this is the case, how can be sure that we ever actually had free will? In terms of Dostoyevsky, he actually
sidesteps this issue by heavily implying that many do not weaken the epistemic distance.

Finally, as is the most damning criticism for almost every theodicy, does the means of the vale of soul making
justify the ends of moral perfection, or in Dostoyevskys case, divine harmony. For example: could man have
learnt about moral perfection without having overseen the unprovoked murder of eleven million during the
Second Word War? What is more, the seventy-five years that have followed suggest that humanity has not learnt
anythingwe see atrocities committed worldwide on a daily basis. While it is true that these atrocities have led
to greater political stability on the whole, with the setting up of organisations such as NATO and the UN, there is
still a great deal of suffering.

Collectively the comparisons and criticisms of Augustine and Irenaeus theodicies show that Dostoyevsky is
seemingly guilty of repackaging their theodicies showing that his theodicy is neither original nor effective.
However, Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, claimed that Dostoyevsky was unlikely to have
read their theodicies, and in actual fact it is more plausible that he had simply latched onto theodicies from
academic contemporaries, however when pushed, Williams did say that it was likely his colleagues would have
encountered them somewhere.37

CONCLUSION
In response to the question: To what extent is Fyodor Dostoyevsky an effective and original theodicist? we
have established that the problem of evil is a truly damning argument against theism. Explorations of theodicy in
Dostoyevskys The Brothers Karamazov, and the theodicies of Augustine and Irenaeus lead to the conclusion that
evil cannot be contended with. Both Irenaean and Augustinian theodicy may, initially look very different, but
they are both built on the similar premise of man having abused his free will. Although the wording may be
different, in the end very similar criticisms can be made of them. Dostoyevsky avoided some of Augustine and
Irenaeuss errors but fell victim to many of the same ones in essence The Brothers Karamazov only
repackages the earlier theodicies, thus he is not an original or an effective theodicist. Dostoyevskys argument is
intentionally not succinct which means that it is harder to break down and criticise than Augustine or Irenaeuss,
as first it must be constructed. However once we have assembled Dostoyevskys theodicy we see that it is no
different to the others. We can argue that he does take a different perspective in his use of the Euclidian
argument, something that Augustine and Irenaeus do not, but even so, it is fundamentally a weak and fideist
argumentfor a theist there is no problem with it, but it will do little to persuade a sceptic.

36 Rowe, 1991
37 Williams, 2014
Extended Essay: Dostoyevsky and Evil 9
One major issue that this inquiry has thrown up is whether we can consider Dostoyevsky to actually be a
theodicist at all. If we consider Dostoyevskys knack of using polyphony, and Bakhtins free people analysis,
then it could be argued that he only uses his novel as a forum for debate, rather than a foundation on which to
defend religion. Thus this issue prompts further inquiry as to whether Dostoyevsky can be considered a
theologian and philosopher of religion, or simply an intellectual with an interest in debating matters of God.

However, the paradox of evil and theodicy is thrown in to question at the end of the novel when Smerdyakov the
illegitimate half brother of Ivan and Alyosha admits to killing their father Fyodor. Ivan had nothing to do with the
murder, but his atheistic and irreligious philosophising had had an effect on Smerdyakov which led to killing his
father quoting Ivan as he is convicted: without God everything is permitted. 38

38Volkov, 2011 (N.B. This phrase is actually sourced from the 1990 Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky
translation of Dostoyevskys The Brothers Karamazov. It was retrieved via Volkovs 2011 article, which deals
with the translation of this phrase, the original Russian being: -
? , , , ?)
Extended Essay: Dostoyevsky and Evil 10
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books

Bakhtin, Mikhail. Problyemi Tvorchestva Dostoevskogo. Kiev: Next, 1994.

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. 3rd Edition. Translated by Constance Garnett. New York: Project
Guttenberg, 2009.

Gibson, A. Boyce. The Religion of Dostoyevsky. London, England: SCM Press Ltd, 1973.

Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. 2nd Edition. London, 1779.

Kreager, Linda, and Joe Barnhart. Dostoyevky on Evil and Atonement. Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press Ltd, 1993.

Muljad, Paul. Epicureanism: The Complete Guide. 1st Edition. Paul Muljadi Publishing, 2011.

King James Authorised Version. Swindon: The British and Foreign Bible Society, 2011

Websites

Hansen, Bruce. Dostoevsky's Theodicy. 4 December 1996.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010822133946/http://hansen.byu.edu/hansenb/Thesis.html (accessed August
11, 2014).

Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Chapter 11What is Called Evil in the Universe is But the Absence of Good.
Calvin College. 13 July 2005. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.ii.xiii.html (accessed January 4, 2015).

Online Etymology Dictionary. Etymology of Theodicy. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=theodicy

(accessed February 4, 2015).

Philosophy Online. The Irenaean Theodicy. http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/oldsite/pages/irenaean.htm

(accessed December 6, 2014).

The Problem of Evil and John Hicks Soul-Making Theodicy . 2009.

http://static.sewanee.edu/philosophy/interlocutor/archives/2009/Climenhaga.pdf (accessed January 2, 2015).

Tooley, Michael. The Problem of Evil. 16 September 2002. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/ (accessed

August 22, 2014).

Volkov, Andrei I. Dostoevsky Did Say It: A Response to David E. Cortesi. 2011.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/andrei_volkov/dostoevsky.html (accessed February 5, 2015).

Films

Arlanch, Francesco, and Sebastian Henckel-Donnersmarck. Sant'Agostino. Directed by Christian Duguay. 2010.

Haslanger, Professor Sally. Philosophy: The Problem of Evil. YouTube. Directed by Professor Sally Haslanger.
Produced by Wireless Philosophy. Performed by Professor Sally Haslanger. YouTube, 2013.

Weil, Irwin. Irwin Weil on Dostoevsky. YouTube via:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayh-ehvFVfU. Directed

by Anon. Performed by Irwin Weil. You Tube, 2012.

Extended Essay: Dostoyevsky and Evil 11

Articles

Forbes, J. Suffering and Salvation in The Brothers Karamazov: Dostoevsky's Response to the Problem of
Theodicy. Perspectives: Student Journal of Germanic and Slavic Studies. Provo, Utah, USA: Brigham Young
University, 2003.

Rowe, William L. Paradox and Promise: Hick's Solution to the Problem of Evil. Problems in the Philosophy of
Religion: Critical Studies of the Work of John HicK, 116. New York, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991.

Wellek, Rene. Bakhtin's View of Dostoevsky: Polyphony and Carnivalesque". Dostoevsky Studies. Toronto,
Canada: University of Toronto, 1980.

Lectures

Williams, Rowan, A Q&A with Former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams Crowthorne, Berkshire, (10
December 2014).

Extended Essay: Dostoyevsky and Evil 12