Cardinal Henri de Lubac on Dostoevsky and Nietzsche in “The Drama of Atheist Humanism”

Here I address three great interests of mine: Catholic social doctrine, Dostoesvsky, and Nietzsche, all of which intersect in a book indispensable to Western cannon by Cardinal de Lubac, called “The Drama of Atheist Humanism.” In this work, the great Cardinal dives into the philosophies of these two great writers in the context of humanism.

Henri de Lubac (1896-1991) was a French Jesuit priest, theologian, and cardinal who was known for his work in the field of patristics and his contributions to the development of Catholic theology. In “The Drama of Atheist Humanism,” de Lubac examines the rise of atheistic humanism in modern times and its impact on society and the individual. The twentieth century witnessed the rise of humanism, which claimed to liberate humanity from all forms of oppression and usher in a new era of progress and enlightenment. However, de Lubac’s book exposes the sinister reality of this movement and how it led to some of the worst atrocities in human history. For example, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Mao’s China were all regimes that espoused humanist ideologies, which resulted in the deaths of millions of people. In Soviet Russia alone, it is estimated that the government was responsible for the deaths of around 20 million people under the humanist banner of promoting “scientific socialism.” Similarly, Nazi Germany’s racist ideology was rooted in a humanist worldview that led to the genocide of six million Jews and millions of others. Mao’s China saw the death toll rise to 45 million during the Great Leap Forward, a humanist initiative to increase agricultural and industrial productivity. Through the examination of these events, de Lubac warns us about the dangers of embracing humanism as a philosophy or political movement.

I’ll be addressing only Part Three of the book in which de Lubac compares and contrasts my favorite author, by far, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Nietzsche, the latter whose work is too important to ignore. De Lubac’s analysis is deep and fascinating, and, as far as I’m concerned, must reading.

Part Three of The Drama of Atheist Humanism is divided into three sections, each addressing a different aspect of the problem of atheistic humanism.

Section I, titled “Comparison with Nietzsche,” compares and contrasts the views of Henri de Lubac and Friedrich Nietzsche on the nature of humanity and its relationship with the divine. In this section, de Lubac argues that Nietzsche’s rejection of Christianity and his celebration of the “will to power” has contributed to the moral decay of Western civilization and the rise of totalitarianism.

Section II, titled “The Bankruptcy of Atheism,” explores the failures of atheistic humanism in practice, with particular emphasis on the atrocities committed by Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Mao’s China. De Lubac argues that these regimes, which rejected religion and traditional morality, were responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

Section III, titled “Experience of Eternity,” examines the human experience of transcendence and the search for meaning beyond the material world. De Lubac argues that this search is universal and that attempts to suppress it in the name of atheistic humanism are misguided and ultimately futile.

DOSTOEVSKY AS PROPHET (Intro to Part III of The Drama of Atheist Humanism)

Before de Lubac gets to his comparison of Fyodor Dostoevsky with Nietzsche in Part Three of “The Drama of Atheist Humanism,” he readies his reader for his coverage of Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky, who he sees as a prophetic voice warning against the dangers of atheistic humanism. De Lubac begins by describing Dostoevsky’s portrayal of the nihilistic mindset that he believed had become [too] prevalent in modern society: “Dostoevsky, more than any other writer, has known how to depict the fundamental atheism of modern man, which is not only a theoretical rejection of God, but a rejection of everything that is spiritual, superhuman, or supernatural.”

De Lubac argues that for Dostoevsky, this rejection of the spiritual and supernatural led to a profound sense of alienation and despair: “The nihilist has rejected everything, and in doing so has cut himself off from the very roots of his being. He is, in Dostoevsky’s words, a ‘man without a chest’, without a heart, without a soul.”

De Lubac goes on to explore Dostoevsky’s critique of the idea of progress, which he saw as a central tenet of the atheistic humanism that he opposed: “Dostoevsky saw clearly that the idea of progress, which is central to the humanist project, was ultimately a delusion. It was a false promise of a utopian future that could never be realized, and that led to the destruction of the present.”

According to de Lubac, Dostoevsky saw the consequences of this delusion in the revolutionary movements of his time, which sought to create a new and better society through violent means: “Dostoevsky saw in the revolutionary movements of his time the logical outcome of the humanist project. They were attempts to create a new world out of the ruins of the old, but they were doomed to failure because they were based on a false understanding of human nature.”

De Lubac argues that Dostoevsky’s critique of atheistic humanism was not simply negative, but was grounded in a profound sense of the value and dignity of human beings: “Dostoevsky believed that every human being was created in the image of God, and that this gave them an inherent dignity and worth that could not be diminished by any external circumstance. This belief was the foundation of his critique of atheistic humanism, which he saw as an attempt to reduce human beings to mere cogs in a machine.”

In sum, de Lubac portrays Dostoevsky as a powerful voice of opposition to the atheistic humanism that he saw as a dangerous and destructive force in modern society. Through his depictions of the nihilistic mindset, his critique of the idea of progress, and his defense of human dignity, Dostoevsky offered a powerful challenge to the dominant cultural and philosophical currents of his time.

De Lubac drives home the point that Dostoevsky’s philosophy is fundamentally different from that of Nietzsche, despite some surface-level similarities. De Lubac argues that Nietzsche’s worldview is ultimately nihilistic and destructive, while Dostoevsky’s is life-affirming and based on a deep understanding of human nature and the human condition.

I.   Comparison with Nietzsche

1. Hostile Brothers

In this first section, titled “Hostile Brothers”, de Lubac explores the relationship between the characters of Ivan and Alyosha in Dostoevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov. De Lubac argues that Ivan represents the nihilistic, atheistic worldview of Nietzsche, while Alyosha represents the Christian worldview of Dostoevsky.

De Lubac writes, “Ivan is the symbol of everything that Dostoevsky opposes: the destructive force of atheistic humanism, the anti-Christ in man.” Ivan’s philosophy is based on the idea that there is no objective morality or meaning in the universe, and that therefore anything is permissible. He famously declares, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.”

In contrast, Alyosha represents the Christian view that life has meaning and purpose, and that there are objective moral standards that must be followed. De Lubac writes, “Alyosha, on the other hand, is the symbol of everything that Dostoevsky affirms: the presence of Christ in man, the possibility of loving and being loved.”

De Lubac argues that the relationship between Ivan and Alyosha is a microcosm of the larger struggle between the worldviews of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky. Ivan is constantly trying to pull Alyosha over to his side, to convince him of the nihilistic worldview that he espouses. However, Alyosha remains firm in his Christian faith, and ultimately serves as a witness to the truth of Dostoevsky’s philosophy.

De Lubac continues, “Alyosha’s life will be a witness to his brother’s despair, but also to the possibility of hope in the human heart, even in the darkest moments.” Alyosha’s refusal to be swayed by Ivan’s arguments, and his steadfast adherence to his Christian faith, serves as a powerful example of the life-affirming philosophy that de Lubac believes is at the heart of Dostoevsky’s work.

In sum: de Lubac’s analysis of the relationship between Ivan and Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov serves as a powerful defense of Dostoevsky’s worldview, and a refutation of Nietzsche’s nihilistic philosophy. De Lubac argues that Dostoevsky’s philosophy is fundamentally life-affirming, based on a deep understanding of human nature and the human condition, and that it offers a path to hope and redemption in even the darkest moments of human existence.

2. The Torment of God

In “The Torment of God,” de Lubac discusses how Dostoevsky’s writing highlights the problem of evil and the suffering of innocent people, which is often used as an argument against the existence of God. De Lubac argues that Dostoevsky presents a more complex understanding of the problem of evil than many contemporary philosophers, and that his work can help us to better understand how faith and suffering are connected.

De Lubac quotes from Dostoevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov to illustrate this point. In the novel, the character Ivan Karamazov presents the famous “Grand Inquisitor” parable, in which Christ is condemned by the Inquisition for his failure to prevent human suffering. The parable raises the question of how a good God can allow evil to exist in the world. De Lubac argues that Dostoevsky does not present a simple solution to this problem, but rather shows that it is a deep mystery that cannot be fully understood by human reason alone.

De Lubac also discusses Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment, which explores the relationship between crime, guilt, and redemption. The main character, Raskolnikov, murders an old woman and her sister, but is tormented by guilt and ultimately seeks redemption through confession and punishment. De Lubac argues that Dostoevsky presents a more nuanced understanding of the problem of evil than many contemporary philosophers, and that his work can help us to better understand how faith and suffering are connected.

De Lubac also draws on the figure of Job from the Bible to illustrate his point. Job is a righteous man who suffers greatly, and his friends attempt to offer explanations for his suffering. However, God ultimately reveals to Job that the reasons for his suffering are beyond human understanding, and that he must simply trust in God’s goodness and love.

In sum: de Lubac argues that Dostoevsky’s writing presents a complex and nuanced understanding of the problem of evil, which can help us to better understand the connection between faith and suffering. Through his use of literary characters and themes, Dostoevsky offers a deeper exploration of this issue than many contemporary philosophers, and his work remains relevant today for those seeking to grapple with the problem of evil.

3.  In the Presence of Jesus

In the third part of Section I, titled “In the Presence of Jesus,” de Lubac explores how Dostoevsky’s writings reveal the need for God and the transformative power of encountering Christ. de Lubac argues that Dostoevsky’s works show the inadequacy of Nietzsche’s philosophy, which lacks an understanding of the true nature of humanity and the need for redemption.

De Lubac quotes several passages from Dostoevsky’s novels, including The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment, to support his arguments. For example, he quotes the character Alyosha from The Brothers Karamazov who says, “We are all responsible for all and everything,” to illustrate the Christian concept of universal responsibility and interconnectedness. He also cites the character Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment who experiences a profound change of heart and seeks redemption after encountering the suffering of others.

De Lubac argues that Dostoevsky’s works demonstrate the transformative power of encountering Christ, which is absent in Nietzsche’s philosophy. He quotes Dostoevsky’s character the Grand Inquisitor who, in a dream, encounters Jesus and seeks to silence him because he believes that the people are not ready for his message of love and freedom. De Lubac sees this encounter as a powerful example of the need for redemption and the transformative power of encountering Christ, which Nietzsche’s philosophy lacks.

In the Grand Inquisitor scene, Ivan Karamazov tells his younger brother Alyosha a story of Christ returning to Earth in Seville during the Spanish Inquisition. Christ performs miracles, healing the sick and raising the dead, but he is eventually arrested and brought before the Grand Inquisitor, who interrogates him about his teachings. The Grand Inquisitor accuses Christ of jeopardizing the stability of the church by giving humans freedom, a burden they are unable to bear. The Inquisitor argues that the church has taken on the responsibility of humanity’s salvation by limiting their freedom and creating a society that is comfortable and predictable. He suggests that Christ’s return has caused more harm than good, and that the church must continue to control humanity in order to ensure their salvation.

This scene is a powerful indictment of the church’s suppression of individual freedom and its reliance on earthly power. De Lubac sees this scene as a reflection of the danger of atheistic humanism, which he believes puts human beings at the center of the universe and leads to a rejection of God. De Lubac argues that the Grand Inquisitor’s philosophy is not unique to the church, but rather is a manifestation of a broader human tendency to seek comfort and security at the expense of freedom and responsibility.

The Grand Inquisitor’s accusations against Christ, however, are rooted in a misunderstanding of Christ’s teachings. Christ’s message of love, freedom, and responsibility challenges individuals to take ownership of their lives and their relationship with God. The church’s attempt to control humanity, therefore, is a perversion of Christ’s teachings and a betrayal of his message.

De Lubac sees the Grand Inquisitor scene as a call to reject the temptation of comfort and security at the expense of individual freedom and responsibility. He argues that true faith requires a willingness to take on the burden of freedom and to embrace the uncertainty and responsibility that comes with it. By doing so, individuals can build a deeper relationship with God and achieve a greater understanding of their place in the universe.

Dostoesvky’s Grand Inquisitor scene, according to de Lubac, serves as a powerful critique of the church’s tendency to suppress individual freedom and to rely on earthly power. De Lubac uses this scene to argue for a deeper understanding of Christ’s teachings and a rejection of the temptation of comfort and security at the expense of individual freedom and responsibility.

De Lubac also highlights the theme of forgiveness in Dostoevsky’s works, which he sees as a central aspect of Christian belief. He quotes the character Sonya from Crime and Punishment who forgives Raskolnikov for his crimes, and argues that this act of forgiveness demonstrates the transformative power of love and mercy.

In conclusion, de Lubac’s defense of Dostoevsky’s works in “In the Presence of Jesus” highlights the transformative power of encountering Christ and the need for redemption, which he argues is absent in Nietzsche’s philosophy. By quoting various characters and scenes from Dostoevsky’s novels, de Lubac illustrates the central themes of responsibility, interconnectedness, forgiveness, and transformation in Christian belief

II.   The Bankruptcy of Atheism (Part II of The Drama of Atheist Humanism)

In Part Three Section II of “The Drama of Atheist Humanism,” Henri de Lubac discusses what else but the bankruptcy of atheism. De Lubac argues that atheism fails to provide a coherent and meaningful worldview because it denies the existence of God, which is the foundation of all morality and human dignity.

De Lubac begins by quoting a passage from Dostoevsky’s “The Brothers Karamazov,” in which Ivan Karamazov argues that without God, everything is permitted. De Lubac agrees with Ivan’s assessment, stating that without God, there is no basis for morality or human dignity. He argues that the denial of God leads to nihilism, which is the belief that life is ultimately meaningless and without purpose.

De Lubac then goes on to discuss the character of Kirilov in Dostoevsky’s “The Possessed.” Kirilov is a nihilist who believes that the only way to escape the emptiness of life is to commit suicide and become a god. De Lubac argues that Kirilov’s philosophy is a logical consequence of atheism because if there is no God, then man must become a god.

De Lubac also examines the character of Shigalov in “The Possessed.” Shigalov is a utopian socialist who believes that the end justifies the means, and that the state should have absolute control over the lives of its citizens. De Lubac argues that Shigalov’s philosophy is also a logical consequence of atheism because if there is no God, then man must create his own morality and values.

Finally, de Lubac discusses the character of Ivan Karamazov in “The Brothers Karamazov.” Ivan is a rationalist who believes that the suffering of innocent children is evidence that God does not exist. De Lubac argues that Ivan’s philosophy is flawed because it fails to account for the mystery of God’s love and the fact that God allows suffering to bring about greater good.

In sum: De Lubac’s analysis of atheism is compelling because it shows the logical consequences of denying God’s existence. Without God, there is no basis for morality or human dignity, and life becomes ultimately meaningless. De Lubac’s analysis also shows the danger of utopian ideologies that seek to create a perfect society without regard for the dignity and freedom of the individual. Overall, De Lubac’s analysis highlights the bankruptcy of atheism and the need for a foundation of God’s existence to provide a meaningful and coherent worldview.

1. The Man-God

In Part Three Section II titled “The Bankruptcy of Atheism” in Henri de Lubac’s book “The Drama of Atheist Humanism”, the author delves into the character of the Man-God in Dostoevsky’s works. De Lubac argues that the Man-God is a symbol of the ultimate truth that the human soul is seeking, and that without this symbol, humanity is lost in a sea of relativism and meaninglessness.

De Lubac quotes Dostoevsky’s The Idiot to illustrate the Man-God’s significance. The character of Prince Myshkin is described as embodying the Man-God, and through his interactions with other characters, he becomes a catalyst for their transformation. De Lubac writes, “The Prince is what the others must become if they are to be saved, and he is that in virtue of a quality that is his alone – his simplicity, his foolishness, his kindness.”

The Man-God, according to de Lubac, represents a new paradigm of spirituality that transcends the traditional dichotomy of God and man. De Lubac writes, “The Man-God is the paradoxical figure who reconciles these two terms without confusing them, who incarnates the divine without losing the human, who humanizes the divine without lowering it.”

De Lubac further supports his argument by referencing Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, specifically the character of Alyosha. Alyosha, like Prince Myshkin, embodies the Man-God and serves as a beacon of hope for the other characters in the novel. De Lubac writes, “Alyosha brings to the world the Gospel of the Man-God, which is the Gospel of love.”

Through his analysis of the Man-God, de Lubac argues that the concept of atheism is ultimately bankrupt because it cannot offer a satisfactory answer to the fundamental questions of human existence. Without the Man-God, humanity is left in a state of spiritual desolation and confusion.

In sum: de Lubac’s analysis of the Man-God in Part Three Section II of “The Drama of Atheist Humanism” presents a compelling argument for the necessity of a transcendent symbol that reconciles the divine and the human. By referencing Dostoevsky’s works and characters, de Lubac illustrates the importance of the Man-God in offering meaning and hope to humanity.

2.  The Tower of Babel

In Part Three Section II of “The Drama of Atheist Humanism,” de Lubac explores the idea of the Tower of Babel as a metaphor for the dangers of pride and the consequences of humanity’s attempt to reach God through their own efforts, as seen through the lens of both Dostoevsky and Nietzsche.

De Lubac argues that Nietzsche, like those who built the Tower of Babel, sees human beings as capable of creating their own meaning and purpose without the need for God. Nietzsche’s idea of the “superman” is an attempt to create a new ideal that is no longer based on traditional religious values. However, de Lubac contends that Nietzsche’s attempt to create meaning without God ultimately fails, leading to nihilism and despair.

De Lubac then contrasts Nietzsche’s perspective with Dostoevsky’s depiction of the Tower of Babel in “The Grand Inquisitor.” In this scene, the Inquisitor accuses Jesus of wanting too much from humanity, arguing that people cannot handle the freedom and responsibility that comes with true faith. Instead, the Inquisitor argues that people need to be controlled and their lives made easier, even if it means giving up their freedom and agency. De Lubac sees this scene as a warning against the dangers of trying to create meaning and purpose without God.

Furthermore, de Lubac notes that Dostoevsky’s depiction of the Tower of Babel is ultimately a critique of the Enlightenment project and its attempt to create a rational and secular society. The Tower of Babel, in this context, represents the dangers of trying to create a utopian society without the guidance of God.

In analyzing these themes, de Lubac highlights the importance of recognizing the limitations of human beings and the dangers of trying to create meaning and purpose without the guidance of God. As he writes, “The idea that humanity can create its own purpose and meaning without reference to God is ultimately bankrupt. Only by recognizing our limitations and turning towards the divine can we find true fulfillment and purpose in life.”

In sum: de Lubac’s analysis of the Tower of Babel serves as a powerful critique of the dangers of pride and the limitations of human knowledge and understanding. Through his exploration of both Dostoevsky and Nietzsche’s perspectives, he highlights the importance of recognizing the need for divine guidance and the dangers of trying to create meaning and purpose on our own.

3.   The Palace of Glass

In Part Three Section II of “The Drama of Atheist Humanism,” titled “The Bankruptcy of Atheism,” Henri de Lubac discusses the concept of the Palace of Glass, which he sees as a metaphor for the utopian societies promised by atheist humanism. He argues that the Palace of Glass is not only unattainable but also undesirable, as it is built on the false premise that man can achieve happiness and fulfillment without God.

De Lubac begins by referring to the idea of the Palace of Glass as presented by Nietzsche in his work “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.” He quotes Nietzsche’s character, the prophet Zarathustra, who proclaims, “Behold the Palace of Glass! Do you not see it glittering on the horizon?” De Lubac sees the Palace of Glass as an image of the utopian society promised by atheist humanism, which he argues is a false promise.

De Lubac then turns to Dostoevsky’s “The Brothers Karamazov,” specifically the story of the Grand Inquisitor. He argues that the Grand Inquisitor’s vision of a perfect society is similar to the Palace of Glass in that it is built on the false premise that man can achieve happiness and fulfillment without God. The Grand Inquisitor believes that he can build a society in which all of man’s needs are met, but in doing so, he takes away man’s freedom and forces him to live a life devoid of meaning.

De Lubac then contrasts the Palace of Glass with the Christian notion of the City of God. He argues that the City of God is not a physical place but a spiritual one, in which man finds fulfillment and happiness through a relationship with God. Unlike the Palace of Glass, which is built on the false promise of material happiness, the City of God is built on the promise of spiritual fulfillment.

In sum: de Lubac argues that the Palace of Glass, as promised by atheist humanism, is unattainable and undesirable. He sees it as a false promise built on the false premise that man can achieve happiness and fulfillment without God. Instead, he advocates for the Christian notion of the City of God, in which man finds true happiness and fulfillment through a relationship with God.

III.  Experience of Eternity

In Part Three Section III of “The Drama of Atheist Humanism,” titled “Experience of Eternity,” de Lubac examines the experience of eternity in Dostoevsky’s novels and how it relates to the question of God’s existence. De Lubac argues that Dostoevsky presents a vision of eternity that is not static, but dynamic and transformative. He asserts that Dostoevsky’s characters experience eternity not as a mere abstraction, but as a concrete reality that has a profound impact on their lives.

De Lubac begins by discussing the character of Alyosha Karamazov in “The Brothers Karamazov.” Alyosha is a devout Orthodox Christian who experiences moments of profound ecstasy and spiritual insight. De Lubac argues that Alyosha’s experiences are not just subjective, but are rooted in a reality beyond himself. He writes, “In Alyosha, we are given a glimpse of an experience of eternity which is not simply the product of his own imagination or will, but which is somehow given to him from beyond himself” (p. 425). De Lubac suggests that Alyosha’s experiences of eternity are evidence of the reality of God’s existence.

De Lubac also examines the character of Ivan Karamazov, who is an atheist and skeptic. Ivan experiences a crisis of faith when he is confronted with the problem of evil, which he sees as evidence against the existence of God. De Lubac argues that Ivan’s rejection of God is not a mere intellectual position, but is rooted in his own experience of the world. Ivan’s rejection of God is a rejection of a particular vision of God that he finds inadequate to explain the evil he sees in the world. De Lubac writes, “Ivan’s atheism is not a theoretical conclusion; it is a state of being, the product of his lived experience.”

De Lubac also discusses Nietzsche’s rejection of God and argues that it is rooted in a similar rejection of a particular vision of God. Nietzsche rejects the God of Christianity, which he sees as a product of slave morality that inhibits human potential. De Lubac suggests that Nietzsche’s rejection of God is not a rejection of the reality of transcendence, but rather a rejection of a particular way of thinking about transcendence.

In sum: de Lubac argues that the experience of eternity in Dostoevsky’s novels is evidence of the reality of God’s existence. He suggests that this experience is not just a product of human imagination or will, but is rooted in a reality beyond ourselves. De Lubac also suggests that the rejection of God by characters like Ivan and Nietzsche is not a rejection of the reality of transcendence, but rather a rejection of a particular way of thinking about transcendence.

1. Ambiguous Experiences

In “The Drama of Atheist Humanism,” Henri de Lubac explores the relationship between atheism and humanism. In Part Three, Section III, “Experience of Eternity,” de Lubac delves into the concept of ambiguous experiences, which are characterized by a sense of transcendence or eternity that can be interpreted in various ways.

De Lubac begins by referencing Nietzsche’s famous statement that “God is dead.” According to de Lubac, Nietzsche’s declaration is not a triumph of atheism, but rather a symptom of a deeper crisis of meaning and purpose in modern life. This crisis is rooted in the loss of a sense of transcendence or eternal values that give life meaning beyond the purely material.

De Lubac goes on to discuss the ambiguity of experiences that seem to point to transcendence or eternity. He uses several examples from Dostoevsky’s works to illustrate this point, such as the moment in “The Idiot” when Prince Myshkin experiences a profound sense of love and connection with all of humanity, and the scene in “The Brothers Karamazov” when Ivan confesses to his brother Alyosha that he cannot reconcile the existence of evil in the world with the idea of a benevolent God.

De Lubac argues that these experiences, while they may seem to point to the existence of a higher power or transcendent reality, are ultimately ambiguous because they can be interpreted in multiple ways. For example, the sense of love and connection that Myshkin experiences could be seen as evidence of the presence of God or as a purely human emotion that arises from our innate capacity for empathy and compassion.

De Lubac also emphasizes that the ambiguity of these experiences is not necessarily a weakness or failing, but rather a reflection of the complex and multifaceted nature of human existence. He suggests that the search for meaning and transcendence is an ongoing process, and that individuals must ultimately find their own path in this quest.

In sum: de Lubac’s analysis of ambiguous experiences highlights the complexity and nuance of the relationship between atheism and humanism. By referencing Dostoevsky’s works, he demonstrates how the search for transcendence is a central theme in literature and human experience, and how this search can lead to a variety of interpretations and understandings. Ultimately, de Lubac emphasizes that the search for meaning is an ongoing process that requires open-mindedness and a willingness to engage with ambiguity and uncertainty.

2. Dualisms and Symbols

In “Dualisms and Symbols,” de Lubac continues to explore the theme of transcendence, focusing on the limitations of dualistic thinking and the power of symbols to point beyond themselves to the divine. He argues that the dualistic worldview, which divides reality into two opposing realms (such as mind and matter, or good and evil), fails to account for the complexity and richness of human experience. As de Lubac puts it, “The world of experience is too complex and too subtle to be reduced to such a simple structure” (p. 312). Dualistic thinking also leads to a devaluation of the physical world and a denial of the body as an integral part of human identity.

De Lubac draws on Nietzsche’s critique of dualism to reinforce his own argument, quoting Nietzsche’s claim that “the ‘inner world’ is full of phantoms and errors.”  He also invokes Dostoevsky’s character Ivan Karamazov, who famously declares that “if God does not exist, everything is permitted.”  According to de Lubac, this statement captures the nihilism and moral relativism that result from a dualistic worldview, which denies the possibility of transcendent meaning and purpose.

In contrast to dualism, de Lubac asserts that symbols are a powerful means of accessing the transcendent. Symbols, he argues, are not mere signs that represent something else, but rather “are themselves realities that reveal something of the divine.” Symbols are able to evoke a sense of wonder and mystery, and point beyond themselves to the ultimate reality that lies beyond our grasp.

De Lubac draws on Dostoevsky’s “The Brothers Karamazov” to illustrate the power of symbols. He describes the scene where the character Alyosha witnesses the funeral procession of a young girl, and is struck by the beauty and meaning of the ritual. De Lubac writes: “Without understanding the significance of the Christian symbolism, Alyosha nonetheless recognizes its beauty and power to evoke a sense of awe and reverence. The symbols speak to something deep within him, even if he cannot fully articulate what that something is.”

In this way, de Lubac argues that symbols are a means of accessing the transcendent even for those who do not fully understand or accept the underlying theology.

In sum: “Dualisms and Symbols” offers a compelling critique of dualistic thinking and a persuasive case for the power of symbols to reveal the divine. De Lubac draws on the rich philosophical and literary traditions of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky to support his arguments, and his writing is clear and insightful throughout.

3.  The New Birth

In Part Three Section III of “The Drama of Atheist Humanism”, de Lubac explores the possibility of a new birth or a new creation within individuals that brings them closer to God. In this section, titled “The New Birth,” de Lubac draws heavily on Christian mysticism and scripture to discuss the idea of spiritual rebirth.

De Lubac argues that the experience of the new birth is not something that can be forced or achieved through one’s own efforts, but rather it is a gift from God. He writes, “It is given to the man who is humbly aware of his wretchedness and knows how to wait in patience and how to persevere in prayer. It is given to him who, having purged himself of all preconceived ideas and vain desires, finds himself in that ‘nakedness of spirit’ which Christ demands of those who would see God.”

De Lubac also references the story of the Prodigal Son from the Gospel of Luke, where the son leaves his father’s house and squanders his inheritance, only to return and be welcomed back by his father. De Lubac sees this as a metaphor for the new birth, where the individual must first recognize their own sinfulness and turn towards God before they can experience spiritual rebirth.

Furthermore, de Lubac draws on Dostoevsky’s character Zosima from “The Brothers Karamazov” to highlight the importance of love in the experience of the new birth. Zosima states, “Love one another and you will be happy; it’s as simple and as difficult as that.” De Lubac sees this as a fundamental aspect of the new birth, where the individual must love and serve others in order to draw closer to God.

De Lubac also touches on Nietzsche’s concept of the Übermensch, or the superman, as a flawed and misguided attempt at achieving spiritual rebirth without God. He writes, “For Nietzsche, man would have to become a god. But the Christian does not aspire to become a god. Rather, he seeks to become truly human, to rediscover his true self in God.” De Lubac sees the new birth as a way of rediscovering one’s true self in God, rather than trying to transcend humanity through one’s own efforts.

In sum: de Lubac argues that the new birth is a gift from God, and cannot be achieved through one’s own efforts or by following a strict set of rules. It requires humility, patience, and a willingness to recognize one’s own sinfulness and turn towards God. Love for others is also a fundamental aspect of the new birth, and it is only through God that one can truly rediscover their true self and become fully human.

Summary of References to Dostoevsky and Nietzsche

Here’s a list of concepts from Dostoevsky and Nietzsche addressed by de Lubac:

• Prince Myshkin and Ivan Karamazov (Dostoevsky): de Lubac references these characters in the context of discussing the theme of “The Grand Inquisitor” chapter in The Brothers Karamazov. He notes that Ivan’s rejection of God’s world, and Prince Myshkin’s simple faith in Christ, represent opposing views on the role of suffering in human life.
• The Underground Man (Dostoevsky): de Lubac uses the Underground Man as an example of a character who has lost faith in the transcendent, and who sees rationalism and determinism as a means of achieving power over others.
• The Grand Inquisitor (Dostoevsky): de Lubac spends a significant amount of time discussing the Grand Inquisitor chapter in The Brothers Karamazov, using it as an example of the dangers of a purely humanist ideology. He argues that the Inquisitor represents a type of humanism that seeks to supplant God’s authority with its own, leading to a kind of tyranny.
• The Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky): as noted above, de Lubac discusses the Grand Inquisitor chapter at length, but he also refers to other themes from the novel, such as the problem of evil and the nature of faith, throughout Part Three of his book.
• Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Nietzsche): de Lubac references this work as an example of Nietzsche’s belief in the “overman,” or the ideal of a person who transcends traditional morality and embraces his own will to power.
• The Gay Science (Nietzsche): de Lubac uses this work to discuss Nietzsche’s views on the death of God and the “eternal recurrence,” or the idea that time is cyclical and all events will repeat themselves infinitely.
• The Will to Power (Nietzsche): de Lubac references this concept as central to Nietzsche’s philosophy, arguing that it represents a kind of “totalitarian” worldview that seeks to dominate and control all aspects of human life.
• The Eternal Recurrence (Nietzsche): as noted above, de Lubac uses this concept to illustrate Nietzsche’s view of time and the cyclical nature of history.
• The Dionysian and Apollonian (Nietzsche): de Lubac references these two concepts as representative of Nietzsche’s views on the tension between reason and passion, and the need for both in human life.
• The Death of God (Nietzsche): de Lubac discusses this theme at length, arguing that Nietzsche’s philosophy represents a dangerous form of humanism that seeks to overthrow traditional morality and replace it with a kind of nihilism.
• Ivan Karamazov: De Lubac cites Ivan’s famous monologue from The Brothers Karamazov on the problem of evil, in which Ivan argues that a good God cannot exist in a world with so much suffering.
• Raskolnikov: De Lubac references Raskolnikov’s idea of the “extraordinary man” from Crime and Punishment, which asserts that certain individuals are justified in committing immoral acts if they are able to achieve great things.
• Alyosha Karamazov: De Lubac discusses Alyosha’s experience of “ecstatic love” in The Brothers Karamazov, which he argues is an experience of the divine.
• The Grand Inquisitor: De Lubac analyzes the Grand Inquisitor’s speech from The Brothers Karamazov, in which he argues that people cannot handle the freedom that comes with belief in God and need to be controlled by the church.
• Zarathustra: De Lubac references Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra frequently throughout the book, particularly in his discussion of the “death of God” and the idea of the “superman.”
• The Will to Power: De Lubac examines Nietzsche’s concept of the will to power and its relationship to atheism and nihilism.
• Eternal Recurrence: De Lubac discusses Nietzsche’s idea of the eternal recurrence, which suggests that all events in history will recur an infinite number of times.
• Genealogy of Morals: De Lubac analyzes Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals, particularly his critique of Christian morality and his idea of the “slave revolt in morals.”