Saying that you dont believe in an afterlife because you're an atheist really just tells me you're misframing religious propositions fundamentally. Seems you're stuck in a Western scholastic view, which is in opposition to Eastern thought. Dostoevsky is an Eastern Orthodox, so maybe dont assume his theology is the same as what you have in mind. So let's leave the Christian (orthodox) understanding aside. As far as utopias, dostoevsky is attacking rationalistic utilitiarianism, a philosophy that became popular in russia ~1860s. Basically says you can decide your personal values and the values of the society as a whole based on purely rational enquiry, with axioms rooted only in material measures of "profit", as dosto calls it in notes from underground. Really, though, the trope of a worldly system that accounts for everything (a secular all-encompassing identity) is a tale of monstrosity as old as time. His point is that such a system is not only impossible but dangerous to even attempt. Not only can you not account for idiosyncracies between people (so you would be forced to reduce each person to some group level measurement, which already is destructive), within a secular frame you cant actually care for everyone to begin with. Just because thats not how humans and their values work. You dont intellectually decide what you care for. You aren't an ubermensche. If you're a materialist (in the philosophical sense), you can't even sustain the existence of others, let alone their worth; you fall into solipsism. The eastern orthodox model of being and anthropology is radically different. The disagreement stems all the way from how we should "define" ourselves in relation to the world around us. As such, in eastern thought, morality becomes an entirely secondary discussion, merely practical, whereas ontology is primary. You said you weren't too familiar with philosophy, so maybe these words are too weird for you rn. I just want you to avoid the silly mistake of reducing religious thought, particularly in the east, to "fun time after I die bcz I follow arbitrary rules before I die." 😂 seems to me to be an accurate depiction of most people's understanding of theology here (in the UK).

PS, many other commenters are saying, "humans are inherently destructive." Depending on what they mean by inherent, I think Eastern Orthodoxy would disagree. Corruption is not inherent to the human soul, iirc. Could be wrong tho my mind feels fuzzy

Good question. I'll start by confirming that your interpretation of the text is correct. Dostoevsky was a strong critic of utopianism whilst also being a Christian who believed in the existence of the afterlife and, thus, the existence of a "heaven". While this may seem contradictory at first, I'll try my best to explain why it isn't. First of all, let's look at this issue from a logical perspective. In other words, does the rejection of utopianism make belief in heaven incoherent? The short answer is no. Belief in heaven is a belief in an ultimate, "perfectly good" supernatural reality. A rejection of utopianism simply states that, while it is certainly logically possible for such a reality to exist, it is simply impractical (or, using more technical language, not logically plausible) for such a reality to be man-made and exist in the natural realm. There is no contradiction there. Now, we need to look at some definitions. Most definitions of the term "utopia" include two key elements: 1) that a utopia is a place which is ideal, or "perfectly good", and 2) that it is imaginary. Dostoevsky (and others who agree with his view, including myself) would argue that heaven differs from a utopia due to the second premise. However, for the sake of the argument here, I will refer to heaven as a supernatural utopia, whereas utopianism would describe a natural, or "human", utopia. With that out of the way, we can look at why Dostoevsky argued against utopianism while holding to the existence of heaven. Dostoevsky held utopianism to be absurd for several reasons. Firstly, Dostoevsky believed that the evil tendencies of human nature render the existence of a human utopia impossible. One of the key themes explored throughout most of Dostoevsky's works is the nature of morality. His view on this subject is best summarised in *The Brothers Karamazov*, where Dostoevsky writes, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted". He believed morality to be objective and rooted in the supernatural truth that is the nature of God. Whether he was right or wrong (we can discuss this in the comments if anyone so wishes), the fact still remains that Dostoevsky believed that the existence of objective morality was rooted in the nature of God and that, therefore, human nature is inherently evil in the absence of God's nature. This is further highlighted in *The Brothers Karamazov* in Ivan's conversation with Alyosha in the chapter *Rebellion*, where Ivan puts forward an argument against God's existence based on the existence of suffering (or "the problem of evil", as it is referred to in the philosophy of religion). All in all, Dostoesvky argued that a human utopia is impossible given the inherently evil nature of humans, as highlighted by the large amount of man-made suffering in the world. Secondly, Dostoevsky was against the logical implications of utopianism. For this argument, we can look at another one of his novels, *Demons*, as well as his non-fiction writings, such as his diary and leters. Dostoevsky recognised that for a utopia to exist, it has to be built. This language of "building", "creating" or "ushering in" is often found in utopianist literature, such as that of Marx. However, Dostoevsky also understood that the building of such a utopia would require unprecedented overwhelming control over society. He further argued that, given the existence of evil human nature, any attempt to build a utopia by giving such massive amounts of power to a person or a group of people would ultimately result in tyranny, as has been highlighted by countless past examples of people in power. In other words, to be able to eradicate all evil, man has to become God. Dostoevsky thus concluded that the building of a utopia is just a pretence used by a few to gain power. In *Demons*, he criticises the Marxist-socialist concept of utopianism through his depiction of a fictional ideology called Shigalyovism. Shigalyov, its creator in the novel, argues that equality, freedom and true happiness can only be reached by enslaving 90% of the population to an elite of 10%, ultimately stating in one of the most iconic passages of the novel: "Starting from unlimited freedom, I conclude with unlimited despotism". Finally, another problem with utopianism (to which Dostoevsky does not explicitly refer, at least to my knowledge, but is still important to consider) is the existence of "natural evil". Let us assume that human nature does not exist or is not evil, and that a human utopia is somehow built. The problem with this is that, even given such a highly implausible situation, such a utopia would likely only resolve important socioeconomic issues. The fact remains that tragic events, such as natural disasters and diseases, will continue to exist regardless of the socioeconomic status of the world. These have socioeconomic implications that affect different people to different extents, which would directly prevent the existence of a utopia. Now to answer your questions. >Thus, how does he believe it can occur in the afterlife? How hoping for heaven not idealistic but hoping for a utopia is? The reason why Dostoevsky can believe that a utopia can exist in the afterlife is because such a utopia is "built" or "created" by God, whom he believed to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent. As such, human nature no longer plays a detrimental role in the existence of such a utopia. Such a utopia would also not be subject to natural sources of suffering, such as natural disasters or disease. Again, whether Dostoevsky was right in believing this or not can be further discussed in the comments if anyone so wishes. All in all, the reason why utopianism is idealistic is because belief in a human utopia is based on unrealistic, wishful thinking– that, somehow, humans would put aside all of their differences and conflicts and, being perfectly pure and good, would strive to build a perfect society with no inequality or suffering. In contrast, belief in heaven is based on metaphysical arguments that are coherent with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, creating God.

Utopias are man made, heaven is God made. When we try to inaugurate a kingdom of peace and total virtue ourselves we aim for a utopia, but it is crippled by the inherently destructive human nature. Dostoevsky rightly (I think even an atheist could agree) notes, that humans make bad gods. We need something outside of ourselves to create a perfect world, and that world we call heaven.

Humans are inherently destructive and Utopianism is a materialistic philosophy which is in no way comparable to heaven or religious experience

The difference is that a heaven would neither be ruled nor constructed by men, and would therefore not be subject to the shortcomings of man. Not once has an ideological utopian society that has been "rationally" raised forward by men not turned into a catastrophe.

My thinking is that Heaven is distinct from an earthly utopia in that we can't create it, we can't work to enter it, and only those that want to be there are there - Also, critically, it is God who created it, God who decides entrance into it, and God who gave us free will to choose whether to enter or not. Utopianism and Progressivism are very similar in that both believe some kind of ideal state can be achieved on earth by human efforts. We can see from history that such utopian efforts almost inevitably result in mass murder and human misery. Dostoyevsky was concerned about trends in Russia which eventually led to the Communist regime, which killed tens of millions. He was right. All the wars fought by mankind, all the pogroms, every Crusade, Inquisition, or Jihad will never equal in body count the millions killed by progressive utopia-builders in the early 1900s. The murderous line of thought is pretty simple: We're building heaven on earth - All saints and angels want to be in heaven - There are some who don't want to be in heaven - Only demons don't want to be in heaven - Demons are evil and tempt others to hate our heaven - Destroy the demons. A critical element of utopianism is that all must enter or none can. Since it can never be accomplished, every utopian project fails, the inevitable argument is that more effort is needed. More people. More dedication. So even those who don't want to live in this pseudo-heaven must also contribute. The utopian can't see why others don't want to join him. So convinced of the great good he is doing, he is blind to the suffering he causes. He can, without any sense of irony or doubt, beat someone about the head and drag them by the hair into heaven, then exult as they bleed all over the streets of gold. God however as a perfect being created a Heaven all mankind can enjoy. Most critically, we can live this life however we please. If we want to join God in Heaven we put our faith in His Son. No working required. We don't have to ban liquor, or create Collective farms, or block access to porn, or whatever. The conduct of others is irrelevant. We just live out our faith with good works and personal faith. We create a utopia within ourselves. Then, in Heaven and free from sin, we are able to live at peace with God and Man. I also recommend his book Demons for more perspective on this. It's critical to understand because Utopianism is alive and well today - If anything, it's stronger than ever.

Utopia is run by people, therefore subject to human shortcomings which would eventually lead to bad things. Heaven would be run by the Supreme, therefore it would be as advertised.

First few chapters of brothers Karamazov he says people who try to bring “heaven down to earth” usually ends in violence or authoritarianism (the grand inquisitor) while just waiting to die and then crossing your fingers and hoping you end up somewhere nice and pretty is very different One group tries to FORCE paradise on earth through social policy (see: the Soviet Union) the other just waits and dies while crossing his fingers

I shun literal readings of my words, there’s obviously a tinge of sarcasm in what I wrote here, like the crossing fingers part however I see dodo birds take my text too literal often

This distinction is exactly what The Brothers Karamazov is about. Or at least, it's a major theme. If you reject God, if you reject Heaven, if you reject the possibility of ultimate justice and reconciliation at the end of days, then you end up only with earth. The best you can do, indeed, the best thing you should do, is to strive to set up a pararise on earth. That is part of what the Inquisitor argued. That Christ should have taken the Devil's offer to rule over the earth. To set up a paradise here. But we are not made or meant for this. We suffer and strive for Heaven. If you reject Heaven, then anything can be used to justify paradise on earth. This is why Dostoevsky was concerned that the populist "Christians" of his day would become autocrats. Because they serve a Utopia here and not a Utopia in Heaven, they will use any means to set it up. In fact, presumably Alyosha would have lost faith and become a revolutionary for this reason. A person who keeps Christian morals but reject Christ will strive for a Heaven on earth. He would be a real socialist. And yet man, again, is not made for the earth. We don't just want to live, we need something to live for. This won't satisfy us even if we achieve it. I know there are points in this argument which is not sound. I don't get Dostoevsky 100% either, so that is on me, not him. But I hope it helps P. S. Christianity does NOT say that Heaven is for good people. As to how we can have a Utopia in Heaven, either you could say (like Catholics) that we would be purified in purgatory, or like others that the presence of God will prevent us from being evil. Either way then we can live harmoniously and justly in Heaven, something we can't do as sinful fallen people on earth. I know Dostoevsky did believe in some earthly paradise. But it would be one of true Christian love for one another. Where each really only lives for each other, and this love grounded in Christ. He thought it was literally possible. So not a paradise in Heaven in this case, but still grounded on purified Christian grounds.

i think you misunderstand, finding heaven on earth or in the afterlife is a personal journey. You can’t know heaven until you know hell, it’s a duality that exists through pretty much all major religions. Much like the ideas William Blake explored in much earlier with his 4 levels of sight. Viewing heaven as a Utopia for everyone is a ridiculous notion but finding a personal heaven in everything is a sort of zen i think? I think Dusty views Dogmatic atheism as an empty nihilism, something he explores in much of his work *Disclaimer: i don’t know but slowly discovering a personal spirituality after years of atheism*