Or, if you want to quibble about the word "lie," he is a dishonest man.
Here’s why:
Pullman is the author of the His Dark Materials trilogy, which is overtly anti-Christian and the first volume of which has been made into a movie titled The Golden Compass. Naturally, the Catholic League and its head Bill Donohue are warning parents against it, and Pullman is quoted as saying the following:
"To regard it as this Donohue man has said – that I’m a militant atheist,
and my intention is to convert people – how the hell does he know that?"
he said, in an interview with Newsweek magazine.
First, note that what we have here is a vehement non-denial denial. Pullman isn’t denying that he’s a militant atheist with the intention to convert people (at least in this quote; he may have made an actual denial elsewhere, in which case he’s a flat-out liar). He’s vehemently questioning how one would know that in order to convey the impression that he is not a militant atheist out to convert people and that he’s indignant at the statement that he is one.
Because it’s a non-denial denial, one can quibble over whether it constitutes a lie, just like one can quibble over whether various non-denial denials issued by the Nixon White House (or other White Houses) were technically lies, but the clear intent here is to deceive.
But let’s answer Pullman’s question: How "the hell" does Bill Donohue know that Pullman is a militant atheist out to convert people?
Because Pullman himself has said so!
In an interview published in
the Washington Post (Feb. 19, 2001), he stated:
“’I’m trying to undermine the basis of
Christian belief,’ says Pullman. ‘Mr. Lewis [C.S. Lewis, author of The Chronicles of Narnia] would think I
was doing the Devil’s work.’”
Similarly, in an interview published in the Sydney Morning
Herald (Dec. 13, 2003), Pullman stated:
“I’ve been surprised by how little
criticism I’ve got. Harry Potter’s been taking all the flak. I’m a great fan of
J.K. Rowling, but the people—mainly from America’s Bible Belt—who complain that
Harry Potter promotes Satanism or witchcraft obviously haven’t got enough in
their lives. Meanwhile, I’ve been flying under the radar, saying things that
are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are
about killing God.”
And indeed they are. In the end, the heroes of the novels
actually kill God.
So Pullman is simply being dishonest when he vehemently questions how anyone could know that he is a militant atheist out to convert people. He himself has made it abundantly clear in press interviews.
This kind of transparent disingenuity really makes Pullman come across as a small and pathetic individual.
For all the protestations atheists typically make about embracing truth rather than a fairy tale, it seems Mr. Pullman leaves something to be desired in the truth department.
And why not?
If, on his view, we’re just walking bags of chemicals then why shouldn’t the bag of chemicals that is Philip Pullman not spout any string of syllables needed in order to maximize its bank account and the amount of power it has to command pleasurable sensory feedback?
This makes me think of something I encountered yesterday. I think it’s funny when people say that those of us who have faith in God are just sheep who don’t think for ourselves, as though we haven’t really put much thought into it and if we did we would realize how stupid religion is. The fact is, it is they who have not put enough thought into it. If you think about the universe, who we are, how we got here, you always come up against walls. Scientific knowledge helps break through these walls some times, but there is one wall you can’t break through. No matter how you explain the beginnings of the Universe, it is always based on physics and mathematical principles. In order for one plus one to equal two, someone had to create a set of rules that allowed that to take place. Even if we are in a paradoxical, infinite loop where the beginnings of time are the end of times and we keep repeating ourselves over and over so there is no real beginning or end, someone had to create that loop in the first place. Maybe I’m going too far off on a tangent here. My point is, I think that ultimately there are actually two types of people who have faith, neither of which is wrong. The first is just as an atheist would believe, they have blind faith in God. There’s nothing wrong with that, but atheists would say that person just isn’t intelligent and doesn’t think for themselves. But there is another type of person of faith, those of us who ask questions beyond evolution, beyond the big bang theory, beyond string theory, people who have come to realize that you can’t explain everything in this universe without the existence of God. It’s not that we don’t think enough to see that religion is stupid, it’s that we think too much, think beyond the atheist, and have come to realize that atheism is stupid.
I read the books years ago, having been loaned them by a friend who is now training for the Anglican ministry. He’d just started the second one when he loaned me the first one, so I finished the set just after him. Discussing the third one, he said that he thought it was well-written – something I’d dispute with regard to ‘The Amber Spyglass’ – but that the theology is all over the place.
The point being: these books are not about killing God, not matter what Philip Pullman may claim.
The books reach their climax with a heavenly battle in which a character called ‘The Authority’, a travesty of God, is killed. He is a created being, eminently fallible, and utterly mortal, who has set himself up as God. He’s not God, certainly not as we’d understand Him.
Now the argument that the books are about killing belief in God – that has legs.
Jimmy,
We need to pray for Pullman and all readers who believe that fiction is fact.
We need also to pray for the breed of folk who look at fact and fiction as merely useful categories, and not as ideas reflecting anything like Truth or Falsehood, which they don’t believe really exist.
“Fact” and “fiction” are just – like, words we use, man.
Or, as Pilate put it;
“What IS Truth?”.
Tim,
There’s the danger of moral relativism: nothing is taken seriously, and there are no fixed points of reference. I wonder though if the proponents of relativism really believe it themselves. They seem to take power and pleasure seriously.
Remind me, who was the Father of Lies, again?
“I wonder though if the proponents of relativism really believe it themselves.”
My experience is that they really believe it when it works to their advantage, and fall back on moral absolutes (under whatever name) when THAT becomes useful.
Tim,
That’s exactly my experience too.
How strong can belief be if you are never exposed to an idea outside of your belief system? Could it stand up to a challenge? I want and encourage my children to question and challenge, in questioning and challenging you gain conviction. You gain a greater knowledge and in those hard times when your belief is weak you have these strengths to fall back on. Parents, especially the loudly proclaimed, mostly through voice, not action, christian parents are so busy “protecting” their children that they are not preparing them for the world. The real world id out there and it isn’t all fair, right and equal as they would have their children think. I want my children to grow up to be stong, moral people not potential victims that are a drain on the rest of us. Teach your children to THINK!!!! See the movie, read the book, which ever it might be, and DISCUSS it. Tell them your opinions and your thoughts and let them form their own, they will be stronger for it, and I’m quite sure that they won’t end up bent over a cauldron cooking up a potion and plan to kill God.
“Tell them your opinions and your thoughts and let them form their own…”
Yeah! Don’t actually *teach* your children right from wrong and correct their errors!
“See the movie, read the book, which ever(sic) it might be and DISCUSS it.”
Shoot heroin, smoke crack, whichever it might be, and DISCUSS it.
“If, on his view, we’re just walking bags of chemicals then why shouldn’t the bag of chemicals that is Philip Pullman not spout any string of syllables needed in order to maximize its bank account and the amount of power it has to command pleasurable sensory feedback?”
That sums it up nicely, doesn’t it…silly chemical bags…
“If, on his view, we’re just walking bags of chemicals then why shouldn’t the bag of chemicals that is Philip Pullman not spout any string of syllables needed in order to maximize its bank account and the amount of power it has to command pleasurable sensory feedback?”
That sums it up nicely, doesn’t it…silly chemical bags…
I think Day does have a point…go look at St. Thomas Aquinas, read his Summa…the one thing he wasn’t afraid of was to dig down and find the best versions of the best arguments against the faith…
…Not that Pullman’s work could ever qualify to that level…
But still, one must be wary about the subversive ability of fiction to infiltrate the mind and plant little seeds one is not aware of…
The Golden Compass
If anybody have seen the trailers for this movie, the anti-Christian (or more specifically, the anti-Catholic) sentiment is clearly evident.
For example, it paints a dark picture of an institution that maliciously declares heresy and said institution is actually called in the movie, “The Magesterium“!
Hmmmm… I wonder why they chose this name for this demonized institution???
Rather than be cryptic about it, they have made plain the reference here.
My bad — that should’ve been spelled “The Magisterium”.
And some Catholics are duped into thinking it’s a very Christian series: http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2007/11/why-is-donna-fr.html
Hmm, why would an atheist write a Christian story? And why would a Catholic feminist theologian think it’s a Christian story?
Harry Potter + Da Vinci Code = His Dark Materials.
I read the first book. And the second chapter of the second book. . . .
Did you guys know that Original Sin kicks in at puberty? Jeesh, talk about straw men.
I’m with Day in that you need to arm your children against the threats they face. Someday they’ll be face to face with a serious argument, perhaps mixed with an alluring temptation and they’ll have to conquer it them selves (the “glamor of evil” we reject each Easter). There are good men in the Bible who raised bad ones, read Kings. It’s not a simple problem, your strength is not so easily transfered. I’d love to hear any parents out there their strategies for instilling a robust faith in their kids.
I agree with you, Memphis Aggie, but it didn’t seem to me that Day was suggesting that you “arm your children” first. It seemed that he was saying something akin to: Teach your children to swim by throwing them into a lake and yelling “Swim!”
Now I see your objection bill
“Parents, especially the loudly proclaimed, mostly through voice, not action, christian parents are so busy “protecting” their children that they are not preparing them for the world.”
How do you know that these parents aren’t Christian in their actions? You shouldn’t spout ad hominum attacks. They fail to prove one’s point. I wonder which direction many post-modern kids will go with this, if given the opportunity: “Should I reject this book about teenagers making out in bed (the amber spyglass), or should I go to church?”
Puuuleeeese! The church has not survived 2000 years by avoiding debate. Phil’s book isn’t a good faith effort to address his concerns. It’s a creepy story about cannibalistic daemons eating the dead bodies of children, etc. This book has no merit.
MA- I’m all for good arguments, whatever the source.
Doesn’t mean I’m going to pay someone who thinks I’m so stupid I won’t realize he’s lying about his motives when he’s publicly stated them.
I also know you don’t get good arguments unless someone is already pretty founded– basically, you don’t learn defense if the only time you get a chance to defend, you get steamrolled.
For these books? *shrug* Whoot, the story got smothered by agenda in the end. I wouldn’t care much — same way I didn’t care about the existence of the DVC books — until the guy started lying in public; if folks start taking his “theology” seriously, I’ll counter that, too.
Maybe folks should keep in mind that stories are a really good way to talk to folks? Jesus used ’em all the time– and the truth usually outs, unless you taint the base in such a way folks can’t notice and present it as true.
I also am just frankly sick of every two-bit hack using “The Church” as their villains– what, were Nazis too demanding to write? Were the Illuminati booked this week?
Puuuleeeese! The church has not survived 2000 years by avoiding debate.
David B.,
It depends which church you are referring to in this regard.
For example, there are those protestant churches that suffer splintering due to the fact that its various members do not agree on some modern issue(s); where several factions disagree within the church about what the Christian Faith entails for the believer in certain modern dilemmas (e.g., abortion, birth control) and because of this, groups of members go on to establish independent churches of their own that accomodate a particular group’s thinking on the matter.
Imagine the outcry if C.S. Lewis were alive to promote the Narnia films, declaring them “simply a fictitious story for children to enjoy”.
Not even going as far as Pullman to claim that the stories are actually the opposite of what is clear and apparent (and what he himself had touted them to be at one point).
Even if Lewis was not entirely explicit about the true nature of his soon to be release film, he would be smoked out and labeled a liar (by omission).
Humm.
I wonder how many of these parents would take their children to Birth of a Nation in order to expose them to an idea outside of your belief system
OK So let me pose a question. Is the inherent weakness of the Pullman books and the Dawkins, Hitchens books a byproduct of the acceptance of their view? In other words do they get away with poorly constructed argument because the ground has titled so far in their favor? Recall these are Englishmen where the Anglican Church is not exactly a tower of strength these days.
If I recall, the DVC publicity machine hired people to go on the internet and encourage those who opposed the film to “see it and make up your own mind.”, or to “see it in groups and discuss it afterward”, or to see it the better to refute its errors.
The phrase common to all these exhortations being “see it”, of course.
David B.,
It depends which church you are referring to in this regard.
Take a wild guess 🙂
Mary,
Do you mean racism? I doubt they will ever get much support for that view or be seriously encouraged to become racist, not in the multicultural era we live in. Not in comparison to the steady denigration of religion But that’s not really the point – what tactic do you employ so that a child is prepared for the challenge? I mean beyond prayer.
I’m not gonna worry about anybody who is trying to kill God, Anybody who thinks they can kill God clearly doesn’t understand the nature of God.
I blogged on this last month http://godspencil.blogspot.com/2007/10/golden-compass.html
At the risk of embarrassing myself I said about His Dark Materials:
I would recommend that any parent who thinks there are reasons to have their children read these books read them first. If you feel your children are mature enough in their faith to allow them to read this book then be prepared to discuss it with them. In any case I would never recommend that young children be exposed to this kind of indoctrination. So if your children are old enough to drive themselves to The Golden Compass they are probably old enough to understand that this movie is nothing more than secularist propaganda. If they are not old enough to drive themselves they should probably skip this movie until they are older.
In the long run it is probably better to skip this movie all together, whatever the age of your children. Why should we want to reward New Line Cinema for making this kind of movie?
If I recall, the DVC publicity machine hired people to go on the internet and encourage those who opposed the film to “see it and make up your own mind.”, or to “see it in groups and discuss it afterward”, or to see it the better to refute its errors.
The phrase common to all these exhortations being “see it”, of course.
And isn’t it curious that the final version of the movie itself eventually tailored itself to explicitly refute those Catholic/Christian apologetics that were set out to defend the Faith against the movie’s heretical ideas?
The version of the Robert Langdon character in the movie was specifically designed for this end.
Jimmay say, So Pullman is simply being dishonest when he vehemently questions how anyone could know that he is a militant atheist out to convert people.
Not so fast.
Strictly speaking, “undermining the basis of Christian belief” is not equivalent to converting people to atheism. Atheists are a few percent of the world population, and Christians are only 33%. That leaves a large chuck who are neither Christian nor atheist, including agnostics.
In addition, the characterization as a “militant atheist” does not fully agree with the Sydney Morning Herald article where Pullman describes himself as atheist only in a limited sense but agnostic beyond that. “If we’re talking on the scale of human life and the things we see around us, I’m an atheist. There’s no God here. There never was. But if you go out into the vastness of space, well, I’m not so sure. On that level, I’m an agnostic.”
Elesiek – you’re splitting hairs and while that might mean Pullman is not lying he is still open to the charge of deception. He is trying to undermine the faith in any case.
I just can’t bring myself to care about this. No one’s going to see this movie anyway what with “Lions and Lambs” still playing.
Elesiek – you’re splitting hairs and while that might mean Pullman is not lying he is still open to the charge of deception. He is trying to undermine the faith in any case.
Jimmy said “Pullman is simply being dishonest.” If a hair can be split in Pullman’s defense, then Jimmy’s “simply” falls apart along with your charge of deception. The burden of proof is on you and Jimmy, and neither of you have met it.
Jimmy and Memphis Aggie have met the burden of proof: “Because Pullman himself has said so”, and the Pullman quotes that follow.
Elesiek – seeing as the author is attacking Christian straw men, it’s a bit hard to deny he’s undermining Christianity; as the books refuse to give any outlet other than an atheist flavored one, he’s promoting atheism.
You’re reaching for complaints.
Elesiek,
Since I take slander to be a serious sin I’ve thought about your point. A more accurate portrayal of his statements might be although Pullman has said he seeks to undermine the faith he objects to being characterized as an extremist. More of a hedge than an outright deception. You’re right to point out how animus can cause us to loose site of charity – especially with those we oppose.
Being a Christian is hard, I can usually pull my punches, and be polite but loving your enemy – that’s a challenge.
That said, Pullman certainly earns valid criticism for his anti-Christian stance. Can you imagine the outrage if this attacked Islam?
I think any story that associates evil with words like Authority, Magisterium, God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, and the Almighty, without stating that those names are properly attributed to the real God, and at the same time associates good with a word like Dust, is not something you want your kids to be reading, unless you don’t really care if they grow up to be practicing Catholics.
My understanding is that “the Authority, etc” is a false God. But is it replaced with a true God, or just Dust? And if replaced, is this god anything like the real God, establishing a real Church with a real Magisterium with real Authority? And if there is a true God, and he’s not mentioned in the series, doesn’t that seem like a glaring omission if it’s not a story promoting an atheistic view of the world?
Here are Seventeen Questions about Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials.
It occurs to me that in this kind of public battle, over-reaction to Pullman invites ridicule of Christians. Atheist assaults are not new, perhaps only the level of overt Atheism in this movie’s source material is novel. Opposing them is hard to do well. Disinterested third parties tend to tune out the latest thin skinned complainer. By softening the movie in relation to the books, excessive Christian complaining can be used to convince folks that those Christians or Catholics are unreasonable.
seeing as the author is attacking Christian straw men, it’s a bit hard to deny he’s undermining Christianity
Who is denying that he’s (attempting to) undermine Christianity? That’s your strawman. The issue is that a person can be a Jew, Muslim, agnostic, etc. – even an atheist – even with the expressed intent of attacking Christianity, but that doesn’t mean the person is a militant atheist intent on converting people to atheism. They are not equivalent.
…but that doesn’t mean the person is a militant atheist intent on converting people to atheism.
Elesiek,
This is where your logic fails —
The fact of the matter is that “militant atheist intent on converting people to atheism” is corroborated by Pullman’s own statements:
“’I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief,’ says Pullman. ‘Mr. Lewis [C.S. Lewis, author of The Chronicles of Narnia] would think I was doing the Devil’s work.’”
— and —
“…Meanwhile, I’ve been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God.”
In other words, “MOTIVE” is, thus, PROVEN!
To undercut ones belief is to encourage the absence of belief and the absence of belief is technically agnosticism not atheism. So on the narrow point it is not an outright lie, but it’s a near miss. There’s a little practical difference between agnosticism and atheism. It’s a mighty fine point to argue over – given the direct admission of active hostility to faith.
When I say Pullman hedged it’s because I think he was objecting to the militancy label which implies violent steps Pullman presumably would not be willing to take.
However we are going to the greatest lengths to be fair on this smaller point.
The reality is that his stated goal is to undermine us. So why actively attack the Church? Is it necessary to disturb other person? Where’s the respect for differing points of view or the live and let live middle ground?
To undercut ones belief is to encourage the absence of belief and the absence of belief is technically agnosticism not atheism.
Memphis,
I disagree —
The absence of belief is technically Atheism.
A skeptical outlook concerning belief is, to me, Agnosticism.
No, Esau…
“I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief”
… so are many Muslims. That doesn’t make them militant atheists intent on converting people to atheism.
“‘Mr. Lewis [C.S. Lewis, author of The Chronicles of Narnia] would think I was doing the Devil’s work.’”
… That doesn’t mean the person is a militant atheist intent on converting people to atheism. Are there not many called Catholics who could be said to be doing the Devil’s work?
“saying things that are far more subversive…My books are about killing God.”
… Saying subversive things, particularly things subversive to Christian strawmen, is not unique to atheism. It doesn’t make one a militant atheist intent on converting people to atheism any more than the Book of Mormon.
Elesiek,
It seems that you are saying that one can undermine Christianity but not wish to convert people to atheism. Strictly speaking that is true. But his means to undermine Christianity is writing children’s books, which seems to indicate intent to shape minds or lead young people in a certain direction. I don’t think that it is an outrageous distortion to consider that an intent to convert to atheism/agnosticism. He is unquestionably seeking to get people to question the legitimacy of all organized religion, equating it with a big scam.
So, yes, perhaps Donahoe is wrong, but I fail to see that he was jumping to unfounded conclusions. Pullman’s past statements certainly raise questions as to his intent. It may or may not be to convert people to atheism but it is a fair question to ask.
And Pullman avoided it, leading to even more speculation.
As an aside, I liked how the article ended with a dig against the Catholic League’s boycott against the Da Vinci code. They implied that perhaps the Catholic League should just give up that strategy. Of course, no one suggests that anti-war protesters give up because they have been spectacularly ineffective. Indeed, though most critics panned the Da Vinci Code, it was a great success. I don’t see anyone saying that critics should stop reviewing movies because they don’t seem to have any effect.
Finally, I think the big backlash will be from the Muslims, in Europe and in the Middle East. You can bet that if a fatwa is issued against Pullman, he will be quick to clarify his previous statement that he is “killing God”. I think that that will be the big problem for atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens and Pullman. They will be shocked at being taken so seriously (death threats, etc) after being treated so respectfully and gently by Christians, whom they consider bloodthirsty barbarians.
To me Atheism does not allow for the uncertain middle ground of maybe yes maybe no but rather positively asserts that there’s no God, which is just one step further. I lived in the gray “maybe” zone for a long time and there is a clear distinction between those that reject the possibility of God and those that allow or it but do not have faith.
The above posts do not mean that Elesiek means anything he posted.
Oh, I see. So, Pullman isn’t trying to convert us to Atheism, but is trying to convert us out of Theism.
Well, then… that’s different.
What WAS Jimmy thinking?
Oh, and how is he trying to “destroy the basis of Christian belief”? Not by attacking Jesus Christ, but by attacking God. That is, he is attacking the very nature and existence of a Creator, which certainly qualifies as trying to destroy the basis of Christian belief, but also the basis of Islamic belief, Judaic belief, etc. In fact, pretty much every belief except atheism.
It reminds me of those Star Trek episodes (or was it movie) where a computer/alien is pretending to be God and is worshiped by a planet’s inhabitants. The masquerade is revealed and the Enterprise goes home happy. Now, technically, that doesn’t disprove the existence of the real God, but it certainly causes one to question whether or not our society has created God, rather than whether God created us. That is, of course, the starting point for atheism.
Think about it this way, if you *were* a militant atheist trying to convert people, what would you do differently than Pullman? Wouldn’t you write a book for children which would inevitably lead them to question all religious authority including God, but in such a way as to not be obvious and would still be entertaining? It seems that the only way we can prove that Pullman is a “militant atheist” is to have him say that he is a militant atheist. But for me, if he quacks like a duck…
The funny thing is that if Donahoe had said, “Pullman is doing the Devil’s work.” you would have also gotten into a tizzy, but that is exactly how Pullman himself characterized his work, as described by one of the most famous Christian apologists in the past few hundred years. If CS Lewis would say that about him, why do you object that Donahoe calls him a “militant atheist”? Do you really think that that characterization would offend Pullman, personally? He explicitly states that he doesn’t believe that God, as most believers conceive of him, exists (that is a personal God). He also is producing books and movies with that world-view at the center. The former qualifies him as an atheist, and the latter as militant.
The renowned Snoopes site came to pretty much the same conclusion.
I cannot comment on the book because I have not read it, nor intend to. If I am alive in fifty years and the Dust still hasn’t settled (pun intended), I might save it for my second childhood reading list 🙂
The Chicken
Indeed, though most critics panned the Da Vinci Code, it was a great success.
I remember that TDC loss 50% of its audience each successive week. It made a lot out of the gate, but it didn’t have staying power, as films which are liked by the masses do.
So, yes, perhaps Donahoe is wrong, but I fail to see that he was jumping to unfounded conclusions. Pullman’s past statements certainly raise questions as to his intent. It may or may not be to convert people to atheism but it is a fair question to ask. And Pullman avoided it, leading to even more speculation.
No, Pullman didn’t avoid it. He point blank asked it: “How the hell does he know that?” Donahue can, as you said, raise questions, but that’s not to ~know~ it, especially after Pullman has stated he’s agnostic, not atheist, in the broad sense.
You can bet that if a fatwa is issued against Pullman, he will be quick to clarify his previous statement that he is “killing God”.
Would a “militant atheist” do that?
err, “lost”
No, Esau…
“I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief”
… so are many Muslims. That doesn’t make them militant atheists intent on converting people to atheism.
Elesiek,
And I suppose militant Muslims are not intent on converting people to Islam!
Your own analogy contradicts you!
The renowned Snoopes site came to pretty much the same conclusion.
I cannot comment on the book because I have not read it, nor intend to. If I am alive in fifty years and the Dust still hasn’t settled (pun intended), I might save it for my second childhood reading list 🙂
The Chicken
Zach,
Saying that you can disprove God, and is contradictory. God is God, whatever one believes about him. Disproving God, yet not really disproving God, is contradictory. There are so many concepts of God that trying to disprove God is quite arbitrary.
if you *were* a militant atheist trying to convert people… Wouldn’t you write a book for children which would inevitably lead them to question all religious authority including God, but in such a way as to not be obvious and would still be entertaining?
Questioning theistic concepts is not exclusively militant atheism. Someone could do the same as a Christian, a Hindu, a Buddhist, an agnostic, etc. After all, is it not the nature of mind, no matter the religious affiliation or lack thereof, to question?
He explicitly states that he doesn’t believe that God, as most believers conceive of him, exists
Do you believe in a conceived god?
You folk need to be no the same page. Which is it? his books undermine God, OR they undermine “the power structure?
http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/2007/11/golden-compass.html
And I suppose militant Muslims are not intent on converting people to Islam! Your own analogy contradicts you!
No, it doesn’t. It’s your own characterization of him as a militant atheist, not mine. I don’t choose to pigeon hole him as a militant atheist, and apparently, neither does he. Why would you want to pigeon hole someone created in God’s image?
Elesiek: Same troll, different handle. As the Beach Boys sang: “Dance, Dance, Dance”!
The quality of Pullman’s is of the same kind as American Treasure versus the Da Vinci Code. Both are essentially the same story of seeking some goal through clues in historical artifact. One of them people will accept automatically as fiction, the other is an intentional subversive attack. So while the Dark Materials can be an innocent if unique story with an intriguing plot–polygamist Aiel anyone?–this work certainly smells rotten.
It would have been OK to write a book with the exact same plot if the motive wasn’t sinister.
B’Elesiek, ol’ troll, ol’ pal. Still up to the same tricks I see. What a dedicated cuss you are.
If His Dark Materials are about “killing God” — not just Jesus or the Trinity — it’s safe to say the “belief-undermining” Pullman is attempting isn’t limited to specifically Christian belief (although obviously Christians are a special target), nor is Pullman interested in, say, seeing Christians convert to Islam.
Pullman likes a world with more unbelievers rather than believers, and that is what his books are about.
No, Pullman didn’t avoid it. He point blank asked it: “How the hell does he know that?”
And that question Pullman asked, as Jimmy observed, is not a refutation of the accusation. It could mean “How did he find that out?”
I’m not a big fan of Donahue, but Pullman’s reaction to this, particularly in light of the statements Pullman has publicly made in the past, does tend to smack of “Who, me?!” (insert faux-innocent look)
Pullman likes a world with more unbelievers rather than believers, and that is what his books are about
Yet in Pullman’s words, “What I am against is organised religion of the sort which persecutes people who don’t believe. I’m against religious intolerance.”
Good to read you again, Stevo! You’ve been gone too long, me friend.
that question Pullman asked, as Jimmy observed, is not a refutation of the accusation. It could mean “How did he find that out?”
Indeed. It’s silly to accuse him of dishonesty based on a question that can be interpreted several ways. The dishonesty is in the mind of the accuser.
It’s silly to accuse him of dishonesty based on a question that can be interpreted several ways. The dishonesty is in the mind of the accuser.
Unless, of course, Pullman intentionally chose an equivocal way of phrasing his response, which I think is Jimmy’s argument (someone please correct me if I’m wrong).
Pardon me; I neglected to include the HTML coding to quote Elesiek. That should have read:
It’s silly to accuse him of dishonesty based on a question that can be interpreted several ways. The dishonesty is in the mind of the accuser.
Unless, of course, Pullman intentionally chose an equivocal way of phrasing his response, which I think is Jimmy’s argument (someone please correct me if I’m wrong).
Pullman portrays the Christian heaven to be a lie…
Pullman’s “Authority” is worshipped on Lyra’s earth as God, but he turns out to be the first angel instead. It is explicitly stated that the Authority was in fact not the creator of worlds. Members of the Church are typically displayed as zealots. Two characters who once belonged to the Church, Mary Malone and Marisa Coulter, are both displayed in a positive light only insofar as they have rebelled against the Church.
Cynthia Grenier, in the “Catholic Culture”, has said: “In the world of Pullman, God Himself (the Authority) is a merciless tyrant, His Church is an instrument of oppression, and true heroism consists of overthrowing both.”
Yeah, Pullman wrote this only because he wanted to write sommething entertaining. No agenda here folks.
Naivete Mind Controller. off
With free speech in mind…
Hop on over to Amazon and or iTunes and give a review. Most parents haven’t the time to do a lot of research into the myriad of options for children but may notice while slowing down shopping. He’s down to 2.5 stars on iTunes! audiobooks.
W
Elesiek: Same troll, different handle. As the Beach Boys sang: “Dance, Dance, Dance”!
Posted by: bill912
Yeah, I figured that out when he had to ignore half of what I wrote– in a single line!– to respond at all.
Ah well– our trolls think we’re foolish for holding out hope for folks who actually want to dialog, and we sigh for them because they’re so sad…..
And I suppose militant Muslims are not intent on converting people to Islam! Your own analogy contradicts you!
No, it doesn’t. It’s your own characterization
Elesiek:
I guess then that militant muslims aren’t interested in converting folks to Islam then!
— silly me!
Again, you keep conveniently IGNORING MOTIVE!
Perhaps they are, in their own way, requesting our prayers.
Yes, that is one thing Pullman has said. He has also said he is “trying to undermine the basis for Christianity” (not just intolerant or persecuting forms of Christianity), and that his books are about “killing God” (not just the God of Christians or the God of intolerant persecutors). You can’t just cherry-pick the least objectionable bits of what Pullman has said and act as if they cancel out the more objectionable bits.
One thing which amazes me is how those who claim to be the champions of tolerance, free-thought and free speech are so intolerant of any non-violent, democratic criticisms of these books and movie. Most of the criticisms point out that this is an allegorical attack on Christian, especially Catholic beliefs and that this movie is about more than fighting bears. No violence no fatwa – just pointing out a few things before you take your kids to the movies this holiday.
Some Christian groups are calling for a boycott (not sure if boycotts are counter-productive). Anyway, a boycott is not a ban. Free speech means you can write it, but I don’t have to read or watch it. You can encourage people to watch it and I can encourage people not to watch it – as long as we do it non-violently.
Compare the comments in the MSM regarding Passion of the Christ with this. Was that an attempt to boycott the Passion?
For all the “evil Papacy” and “International Catholic Conspiracy”, there is NO price on Pulman’s head – unlike Salman Rushdie and the “Satanic Verses”. Will there ever be “Satanic verses – the Movie”?
It’s OK to attack Christianity and especially Catholicism but what if the ‘god’ in this book/movie was called “Allah” or had a character called “Muhammad”? Would our defenders of free speech support “brave”, “free-thinking” Pulman then?
You can’t even call a teddy-bear “Muhammad” in some places. But in the West you can kick God, Jesus and the Church as hard as you like and get applauded.
Unless, of course, Pullman intentionally chose an equivocal way of phrasing his response
Even then, there are many possibilities as to why he might have wanted to be equivocal. Perhaps he didn’t feel any one view or short answer expresses the whole story, so an equivocal response in question form would then be appropriate. Perhaps the question form reflects that he wanted the public to decide for themselves.
The article goes on to quote him as saying, “Oh, it causes me to shake my head with sorrow that such nitwits could be loose in the world.” This would tend to indicate that he sincerely believes Donahue is mistaken. So why accuse Pullman of being dishonest if he’s expressing what he sincerely believes?
Again, you keep conveniently IGNORING MOTIVE!
I cannot ignore what I do not know. The article states, “his only agenda, he said during an interview with NEWSWEEK, is ‘to get you to turn the page.'” Perhaps his motive behind asking the question was not dishonesty but more along the lines as he said, to get people to read his book, so that they may question things for themselves rather than just accept what someone else says.
Church teaching is that, “He becomes guilty of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor.” And, “To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it.”
For me, I find charity to be without end.
He has also said he is “trying to undermine the basis for Christianity” (not just intolerant or persecuting forms of Christianity), and that his books are about “killing God” (not just the God of Christians or the God of intolerant persecutors).
And? Will the gates of whatever prevail against your Church? Will your God fall over? He may use words like “Christianity” and “God”, but as someone else pointed out, he wants to knock down strawmen.
You can’t just cherry-pick the least objectionable bits of what Pullman has said and act as if they cancel out the more objectionable bits.
It’s exactly because I won’t cherry pick that I won’t accuse him of dishonesty.
It’s OK to attack Christianity and especially Catholicism but what if the ‘god’ in this book/movie was called “Allah” or had a character called “Muhammad”? Would our defenders of free speech support “brave”, “free-thinking” Pulman then?
Does it cease to be a strawman if you change the name?
Hey, Felicity…. er, I mean, “Elesiek”… what’s the sound of one hand clapping?
SDG! Been wondering where you wuz at.
I cannot ignore what I do not know. The article states, “his only agenda, he said during an interview with NEWSWEEK, is ‘to get you to turn the page.'” Perhaps his motive behind asking the question was not dishonesty but more along the lines as he said, to get people to read his book, so that they may question things for themselves rather than just accept what someone else says.
Why do you continue to IGNORE his past statements?
In a criminal case, are you telling me that the previous statements made by a suspect should be dismissed as irrelevant?
Again, it is his past statements that go to motive!
You keep conveniently ignoring one portion of the data (substantial data, I might add) in order to draw your ever biased conclusion!
As always, B, I cannot hear what you say for the thunder of what you are.
Alas, my friend, I’ll be no more than an occasional presence here. Things have changed, and I no longer have the freedom to loiter and unravel B’s latest nonsense.
Why do you continue to IGNORE his past statements? In a criminal case, are you telling me that the previous statements made by a suspect should be dismissed as irrelevant?
I don’t ignore them. They simply are not sufficient grounds to convict Pullman of dishonesty for asking a question, particularly a question involving an extreme one-dimensional, pigeon holing claim that is contrary to other statements Pullman has publicly made, to include that his agenda is to get people to read his book and that he is more fully characterized as agnostic rather than atheist. Even if one can reasonably see how Donahue might see Pullman as a militant atheist intent on converting people, that would not be sufficient grounds to express such a narrow view of Pullman as if it were the final truth on the matter, and thus legitimate for Pullman to keep the matter open to question.
And were the police take you away for something, even if you know you did it, even if you mailed a confession to the police yourself, it will always be fair question for you to ask, “How do you know that?” It’s a beautiful question.
Alas, my friend, I’ll be no more than an occasional presence here. Things have changed, and I no longer have the freedom to loiter and unravel B’s latest nonsense.
No problem. You will always have plenty of your own to unravel.
Ha! You might be right, B, but at least I’m not doing it on purpose. :‑) Which may put me at a disadvantage, but OTOH I’m corrigible, and you’re not.
I’ve read through most of the dissection, and I must say I disagree with Elesiek’s claims. Philip Pullman most certainly is trying to turn people into non-believers: he has repeatedly said so. That is why he is guilty of dishonesty… not for the passage Jimmy quoted, but for saying that his agenda “is only to get you to turn the page”.
Regarding the quoted passage, however, I have an interpretation that differs considerably from Jimmy’s damning one. The full quote was “How the hell does he know that? Why don’t we trust the readers? Why don’t we trust the filmgoers?“.
To me, that sounds like a rebuttal I’ve often had to give myself to overzealous religious apologists: “You haven’t read the book. Your criticism doesn’t bear any weight”. I believe Pullman is saying that Donahue should read the book before spouting bile at him (I don’t know whether Donahue actually read that, but it seems to me that Pullman thinks he hasn’t).
Regardless of this incident, I still wish The Golden Compass the best of box-office sales this December. Kids can’t be told ‘think with your own head’ often enough – they have a huge instinctual ‘fit in with the pack’ prejudice to overcome.
PS: Incidentally, isn’t it funny how Philip Pullman’s picture in this post strikingly resembles C.S. Lewis’ one that was posted on Tim Jones’ blog?
Thinking requires preparation. You can’t show kids a movie and tell them “think with your own head”, without first giving them a foundation of truth and logic any more than you can chuck them in a lake and tell them “Swim” without first teaching them the fundamentals of swimming and giving them the opportunity to practice them.
I would agree, except that I suspect our definitions of “truth and logic” are quite different. As a Catholic parent, do you tell your children “God exists” or “I believe God exists”?
I’m corrigible, and you’re not.
Is that like glue and rubber?
I must say I disagree with Elesiek’s claims. Philip Pullman most certainly is trying to turn people into non-believer
Have I claimed that Pullman isn’t intent on promoting disbelief in whatever? I’ve defended Pullman’s legitimate right to question the claim (and/or how does Donahue know) that he’s a militant atheist intent on converting people to atheism, his right to encourage people to read the book/watch the movie and decide for themselves. Pullman himself admits, “in strict terms I suppose I’m an agnostic because… maybe there is a God. But among all the things I do know in this world I see no evidence of a God whatsoever.”
You can’t show kids a movie and tell them “think with your own head”, without first without first giving them a foundation of truth and logic
You mean like a golden compass that whispers in their ears: “We’ve heard them all talk about Dust, and they’re so afraid of it, and you know what? We believed them, even though we could see that what they were doing was wicked and evil and wrong… We thought Dust must be bad too, because they were grown up and they said so. But what if it isn’t? What if it’s?” She said breathlessly, ‘Yeah! What if it’s really good…'”
The words are in the dictionary. You usually last a few more rounds before going content-free.
That is why he is guilty of dishonesty… not for the passage Jimmy quoted, but for saying that his agenda “is only to get you to turn the page”.
Again, I won’t accuse Pullman of dishonesty with respect to his claim that his agenda “is only to get you to turn the page” as the article presents only the smallest of snippets of a statement. We don’t even know what question he was asked nor can we see the flow of dialog in which the statement was made. It indeed may be that his intent at the moment he made that statement was what he said. Certainly in the context of his vocation of storytelling, his intent may very well be to get you to turn the page.
The words are in the dictionary. You usually last a few more rounds before going content-free.
Whose dictionary?
Do you mean racism? I doubt they will ever get much support for that view or be seriously encouraged to become racist, not in the multicultural era we live in.
In which case, it would be more important to bring them to Birth of a Nation — after all:
“How strong can belief be if you are never exposed to an idea outside of your belief system?”
If you reject the notion that such exposure is always good, you can reject both movies.
Can someone clarify what the difference between a militant atheist and a person intent on converting people to atheism is? Aren’t they the same thing? Or does militant have a different meaning within Catholicism than in the general public?
And you need to look at Pullman’s quote about Donahue in its full context.
As you can see from the full quote, Pullman is NOT saying, “How the hell does Donohue know what my books say if he hasn’t read them?”
Pullman IS saying, “How the hell does Donohue know that I’m a militant atheist, and my intention is to convert people?”
And the answer to that is, as Jimmy said, “Because of what you’ve said in the past about your motivation for writing these books.”
The USCCB gave a good review to The Golden Compass http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/07mv242.htm
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2007/11/the-usccb-unfo.html It looks like someone or some people at The USCCB would like to have our children indoctrinated against The Magisterium and taught atheism!
Yomamas.
I’m rubber you’re glue. I know you are but what am I? There, now we’re both content-free. I’d be surprised if you didn’t get the last word, but even more surprised if I haven’t already got in the last meaningful statement, a couple of rounds back.
Of course there’s nothing stopping you from making a meaningful statement, although it’s been my experience that the inverse relationship between the probability of encountering noetic content in any particular post of yours and the length to date of the discussion thread in which the post occurs is fairly consistent. That particular tide generally only ebbs without flowing. Then it’s on to a new combox and a new handle.
You could always surprise me. Or you could make some clever, meaningless non sequitur response! (You are very clever, as I’ve often noted.) Anyone taking bets?
Can someone clarify what the difference between a militant atheist and a person intent on converting people to atheism is?
“Militant atheist” might be someone intent on forcing atheism upon others against their will, while “a person intent on converting people to atheism” might not go that far, but work within socially acceptable limits.
And if Pullman is more properly agnostic than atheist, one would wonder if “militant atheist” is the correct term to describe him.
As you can see from the full quote, Pullman is NOT saying, “How the hell does Donohue know what my books say if he hasn’t read them?”
He asks, “Why don’t we trust the filmgoers?” Will they say he’s a militant atheist intent on converting people to atheism after watching the Golden Compass? Or will they laugh at Donahue’s extreme view?
You have a point, actually. “Militant” can connote “vigorously aggressive and active, especially in a cause” (Dictionary.com, since I know you’re wondering), but it can also connote “confrontational” methods and possibly willingness to “use force” (look ’em up yourself), and while I’d say that, e.g., Hitchens’ “confrontational methods” certainly qualify him (questions of force aside) as a “militant” atheist, I don’t know if I’d call Pullman “militant.”
Bzzt! Pullman calls himself an atheist. If you want documentation, I can provide it.
Many people probably are ignorant enough to think that if the movie version of The Golden Compass doesn’t evangelize for atheism, Donohue’s assessment of Pullman’s intentions is laughable. But I know you aren’t one of them, B.
To echo some of Elesiek’s points:
Pullman has suggested a few times that he would like to undermine Christianity; my impression from his comments is that he regards this as a residual benefit that might arise if his books became more popular. This is quite different from claiming that this is his primary motivation, or one of his primary goals in writing his books.
Jimmy’s slander is completely unfounded. He has provided no reason to think that Philip Pullman is a liar. It is irresponsible to make such an accusation on the basis of such a flimsy pretense. If you confronted Pullman with all of the quotes in Jimmy’s post, he would explain something like what I wrote in the above paragraph – to call that lying is to devalue the term and render in useless in cases where it is actually appropriate.
Also, as an aside, why the label “militant atheist”?
Mao was a militant atheist. Stalin was militant atheist. Philip Pullman is not in the least bit militant whatever his religious views might be and neither is Richard Dawkins. This label could not be any less appropriate.
(I’ll accept SDG’s clarification that it might be appropriate to call Christopher Hitchens militant; although I think in this respect, Jimmy and SDG are militant Christians).
Who first used the term militant athiest, was it Donahue or Pullman paraphrasing Donahue’s comments?
If it was used by Donahue (or any Catholic), unless the context told me otherwise I wouldn’t assume it meant someone like Mao or Stalin. The first meaning if used by a Catholic would mean an active athiest. That’s how Catholics use the term militant.
This seems less than frank. Pullman didn’t just say he “would like to” undermine Christianity, like, yeah that would be a nice thing in principle. He said “I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief,” which does suggest that this intention is a significant part of the project. And he’s said his books are “about killing God,” which definitely puts that theme close to the center of the books.
I’ll accept that term — we do belong to the Church Militant — although I think Hitchens is more probably “confrontational” than I am. Of course I don’t do debates in public; but even if I did I tend to prefer a different approach where possible.
If Pullman made a point of repeatedly railing against the detrimental role that Christianity plays in society in most of his public comments about his books, then I would agree with your interpretation. However, he does no such thing.
You’ve taken two sentences out many interviews and public statements Pullman has made about his books. Placed in the context of all of those statements, it is unreasonable to say that promoting atheism is Pullman’s central intention in writing these books.
This is like if I were to dig through every blog post Jimmy has ever made, find some statements denigrating atheists, and then announce that Jimmy’s intention in writing this blog is to denigrate atheists and that if he denies this, he is a liar.
Bzzt! Pullman calls himself an atheist. If you want documentation, I can provide it.
Pullman discussed the distinction, “The question of what term to use is a difficult one, in strict terms I suppose I’m an agnostic because of course the circle of the things I do now is vastly smaller than the things I don’t know about out there in the darkness somewhere maybe there is a God. But among all the things I do know in this world I see no evidence of a God whatsoever.”
Many people probably are ignorant enough to think that if the movie version of The Golden Compass doesn’t evangelize for atheism, Donohue’s assessment of Pullman’s intentions is laughable. But I know you aren’t one of them, B.
No, I don’t laugh at Donohue. He’s passionate about his beliefs. So is Pullman. Each in his own way.
religion.
a middleman which stands between me and something i seek.
and wants a commission for getting in my way.
two rednecks: “Hey buddy, we’re Christians and we don’t like what you said!”
Bill Hicks: “Then, forgive me.”
Wow! Another intellectual giant! I’m so in awe!
Next time, get your mommy’s permission before using her computer.
Well, I didn’t say “Pullman’s central intention” in that singular and unqualified way. My view is that when an author says, for example, “My books are about theme X,” theme X can reasonably be regarded as not peripheral or incidental to the work, but something that is central (“close to the center of the books”) — particularly when theme X does demonstrably play a significant, even critical role in the drama. This is not to say that it is the only central intention, or that other things may not be central too.
The other quotation, “I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief,” also seems to me to reasonably express “a significant part of the project.” Again, not the one and only central intention.
This is the part where I admit that you are right and I was wrong. (Even though Pullman does call himself an atheist and says “There is no God,” statements like the one you quoted provide the correct context for qualifying his belief as agnostic, with atheist leanings.)
This is the part where you don’t admit that I am right and you are wrong, because you know perfectly well, but don’t care to acknowledge, that the point is not laughing or not laughing, but the gap between what the film version of the first volume of His Dark Materials series has to say about God and religion and what the book series as a whole has to say.
Ergo, corrigible, and not. Thanks for the demonstration.
Signing off for the day. Cheers all.
Don’t feed the trolls.
We are really arguing over a small point. Pullman was once very frank and open about his distaste for Christianity and the motive for the book. These quotes presented here are not the only ones you could find. Now it seems he’s willing to dish it out but he can’t take it. He’ll trash the deeply held beliefs of millions and then turn around and get indignant is someone protests by offering what is by most standards a very mild rebuke.
In prudential caution I’ll avoid calling his response deceptive, but I think it is clearly an example of hypersensitivity and likely arrogance. It’s very likely that in the academic circle Pullman travels he’s rarely challenged if he responses so vehemently to a trivial slight. I’d be far more impressed if he simply shrugged it off.
Further Jimmy made an excellent point in the end of his point (albeit sarcastically). If your an Atheist where’s the restraint on your speech? Why not lie outright if you gain from it? His point is, obvious, the lack “a controlling legal authority” (to quote Al Gores timeless excuse) encourages misbehavior. So even if Pullman didn’t lie here , it’s reasonable to presume he’s not especially concerned about the negative consequences of lies.
It looks like someone or some people at The USCCB would like to have our children indoctrinated against The Magisterium and taught atheism!
err — folks, go read the review itself.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/07mv242.htm
let us say that it is not quite as flattering as you may think
Mark said: “My point is, I think that ultimately there are actually two types of people who have faith, neither of which is wrong.”
G. K. Chesterton said, “There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.”
Pullman is accepting a dogma without knowing it – the dogma we can (and have) killed God. The part he doesn’t accept is that God came back to life and still loves us.
For more of Chesterton’s thoughts on atheists, go to http://www.chesterton.org/discover/quotations.html#Atheism.
Very interesting, and timely, essay.
Of interest, just this morning I ran across this somewhat related item on the Victor David Hanson site. It makes some interesting reading:
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/ibrahim112807.html
Mary,
I just read the review, and it does seem to be quite a flattering review:
– “there’s hardly a dull moment, and the effects are beautifully realized, including the anthropomorphized creatures like the polar bears whose climactic fight is superbly done.”
– “taken purely on its own cinematic terms, can be viewed as an exciting adventure story with, at its core, a traditional struggle between good and evil, and a generalized rejection of authoritarianism.”
– “To the extent, moreover, that Lyra and her allies are taking a stand on behalf of free will in opposition to the coercive force of the Magisterium, they are of course acting entirely in harmony with Catholic teaching. The heroism and self-sacrifice that they demonstrate provide appropriate moral lessons for viewers.”
– “Leaving the books aside, and focusing on what has ended up on-screen, the script can reasonably be interpreted in the broadest sense as an appeal against the abuse of political power.”
– “For now, this film — altered, as it is, from its source material — rates as intelligent and well-crafted entertainment.”
– “The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is A-II — adults and adolescents.”
Those comments sound pretty flattering to me.
Apparently, the USCCB (or at least the Catholic News Service) feels that this film is appropriate viewing for adolescents and teenagers (who we all know are not at all impressionable!).
Incredible! Just incredible!
You people here subscribing to the point-of-view that we should foster and promote our children’s thinking by exposing them to all sorts of media that contradict/distort/etc. their religious beliefs in order to have them face up to the REAL WORLD;
Why, then, don’t we just go on ahead and expose our children to such things as PORNOGRAPHY, amongst all other elements that go against our FAITH, if we should be so inclined to this “Open-Minded” approach?
In a nutshell, these supposed “Free-thinking, Open-Minded” ways are nothing but an excuse to ESCAPE PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, if anything else, if it is not based on a reasonable religious and moral upbringing to begin with!
In addition to arming your children, folks, with Faith and Morals, it should also include having enough guts to ACT AS A PARENT and be responsible for what movies, television shows, video games, etc. that the children are exposed to!
Your “Open-minded” ways are just LIBERAL GARBAGE!
“Where has God gone?” he cried. “I shall tell you. We have killed him – you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God’s decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us – for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.”
Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling – it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars – and yet they have done it themselves.”
– Nietzche, The Gay Science
Is Pullman just proclaiming the arrival of the thunder in our ears?
“He’s not quite dead.”
Good thing, bill, I don’t think I can reach his pockets.
Actually, it is interesting that we’ve come from “God Made Man” to a “Man Made God” philosophy today —
The full REVERSAL of which we can observe in Law even where you find cases that are essentially the Scopes Trial in reverse!
Instead of Evolution, it is now Creationism that is being the thorn of much debate!
Amazing how far man has come — especially in his ARROGANCE!
Take a deep breath Esau.
I don’t espouse exposing young kids to this and I think there’s very good reason to avoid as much of the swill in pop culture as possible. However you do need to expose the kids (the older ones that is) to the intellectual arguments that will offered in refutation of faith. They need to be taught to filter for themselves.
Also you need to teach them methods of deflecting those arguments and point out how their being preached to and how to deal with it. Frankly if they’re teenagers they are likely are already acutely sensitive to heavy handed messages.
There’s plenty of preachy nonsense in Star Trek, but I wouldn’t prevent teens from watching it.
I don’t espouse exposing young kids to this and I think there’s very good reason to avoid as much of the swill in pop culture as possible. However you do need to expose the kids (the older ones that is) to the intellectual arguments that will offered in refutation of faith. They need to be taught to filter for themselves.
Memphis Aggie,
I am in agreement with your above-statement.
I believe one should challenge the thinking of one’s adult children.
However, you don’t do that when they’re at an IMPRESSIONABLE age!
At such a tender age, there is yet a FOUNDATION to be built, and to MUDDY a youth’s mind with filth that would corrupt it is completely IRRESPONSIBLE in my view!
The kid has to learn how to crawl prior to him/her walking on his/her own two feet!
you know perfectly well, but don’t care to acknowledge, that the point is not laughing or not laughing, but the gap between what the film version of the first volume of His Dark Materials series has to say about God and religion and what the book series as a whole has to say.
The “deceitful stealth campaign” is right up there with the hoopla over the Da Vinci Code, Harry Potter and the chocolate Jesus. You’re welcome to join Henny Penny, Cocky-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey and Turkey-lurkey if you want. You’re also welcome to let me know of any school library that would like copies of the books.
I’m sure His Dark Materials has nothing to do with Atheism as Animal Farm has nothing to do with Communism!
This Guy, http://johncwright.livejournal.com/134046.html shows why he thinks the books are propaganda. Unlike Lewis, Pullman repeatedly sarcificed his characters and his story for The Message.
“sacrificed”
This Guy, http://johncwright.livejournal.com/134046.html shows why he thinks the books are propaganda. Unlike Lewis, Pullman repeatedly sarcificed his characters and his story for The Message.
Second that link recommendation. Scathing, insightful, and coke-shot-out-your-nose funny. Clickable link:
“Clickable link:”
or not. sorry.
U.S. BISHOPS SUCK! (that is, if the following is actually true)
The question is —
Now, why would U.S. Bishops call a movie that depicts something called “The Magisterium” as evil???
Could it have anything to do with the fact that the lot of them purposely disobey the Holy See anyway in most of what they do?!
Mark said: “these books are not about killing God, not matter what Philip Pullman may claim. The books reach their climax with a heavenly battle in which a character called ‘The Authority’, a travesty of God, is killed. He is a created being, eminently fallible, and utterly mortal, who has set himself up as God. He’s not God, certainly not as we’d understand Him.”
He’s not God as we understand Him, but Pullman’s point is that God as we understand Him does not exist. His travesty of God is not a created being, because there is no creation. There is only the physical universe, no beginning and no ending. His “god” is just the first piece of matter to become self-aware, and who then tries to convince all others that he created them.
On other point, I’m appalled that the bishops seem to approve of this movie. This is probably because they have not read the whole trilogy. Pullman introduces his theme very gradually. Not until the end of the second book do you really begin to see what’s going on. The third book is where he pulls out all the stops. He is indeed deliberately deceitful.
However, you don’t do that when they’re at an IMPRESSIONABLE age!
May I ask you approximately at what age you think humans stop being impressionable?
At such a tender age, there is yet a FOUNDATION to be built, and to MUDDY a youth’s mind with filth that would corrupt it is completely IRRESPONSIBLE in my view!
I completely agree with this! Except that my ‘filth’ is your ‘doctrine’, and probably vice-versa. Go figure.
Huh, seems someone left a tag open. Fixed.
From Pullman’s own website:
But organised religion is quite another thing. The trouble is that all too often in human history, churches and priesthoods have set themselves up to rule people’s lives in the name of some invisible god (and they’re all invisible, because they don’t exist) – and done terrible damage. In the name of their god, they have burned, hanged, tortured, maimed, robbed, violated, and enslaved millions of their fellow-creatures, and done so with the happy conviction that they were doing the will of God, and they would go to Heaven for it.
That is the religion I hate, and I’m happy to be known as its enemy.
http://www.philip-pullman.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=12
So, even if Pullman isn’t a militant atheist, he is at least a militant anti-Catholic and Donohoe is president of an organization trying to counter anti-Catholic attacks, which this certainly is.
Hey, Zach,
I previously mistook your position on this subject, so I apologize for that.
I’d like to commandeer Pullman’s words: But organised [atheism] is quite another thing. The trouble is that all too often in human history, [governments and secret police] have set themselves up to rule people’s lives in the name of some [all-powerful government] (and they’re all [all-powerful,], because they [believe themselves to be the highest authority]) – and done terrible damage. In the name of [the government], they have burned, hanged, tortured, maimed, robbed, violated, and enslaved millions of their fellow-creatures, and done so with the happy conviction that they were doing the will of [their leaders], and they would g[et rewards] for it.
Thanks, David B..
Someone had to do that.
Always ready and willing, Tim J.
Ooh! Ooh! Can I play too?
But organised [vegetarianism] is quite another thing. The trouble is that all too often in human history, [governments and secret police] have set themselves up to rule people’s lives in the name of some [all-powerful government] (and they’re all [all-powerful,], because they [believe themselves to be the highest authority]) – and done terrible damage. In the name of [the government], they have burned, hanged, tortured, maimed, robbed, violated, and enslaved millions of their fellow-creatures, and done so with the happy conviction that they were doing the will of [their leaders], and they would g[et rewards] for it.
Well, Nihil, I’ll stake you one USSR, one Communist China, one Vietnam, and one North Korea.
What vegetarian regimes will you raise me?
Well, in North Korea everyone but the boss is a vegetarian. OK, it’s because they have no meat to eat, but that still counts, right?
Seriously, though: I’m as atheist as they come, yet I’m pretty sure I’d have been labeled an ‘enemy of the State’ and shot in any of the four you’ve mentioned. The same goes for Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and the other ‘militant atheists’ of these days. Meanwhile, regime-approved and -controlled churches fare pretty well in Communist China, and even in old USSR the Orthodox Church was tolerated as long as it served the purposes of the guys in control. Makes you wonder whether it’s appropriate to consider atheism the defining characteristic of those regimes, doesn’t it?
Who’s scruffy-looking? I must have hit pretty close to the mark to getcha all riled up like that, huh, kid?
With my previously mentioned caveat around the unnecessary definite article, I don’t see why it would.
Just because atheism is a defining characteristic of a particular regime doesn’t mean that making pragmatic use as opportune of religious structures isn’t both more convenient in the short term and a more effective anti-religious policy in the long term than harsher crackdown methods — which, of course, are far from absent in the atheist regimes mentioned, among others.
I readily admit that I have not read through all the comments, just felt like saying that this:
“If, on his view, we’re just walking bags of chemicals then why shouldn’t the bag of chemicals that is Philip Pullman not spout any string of syllables needed in order to maximize its bank account and the amount of power it has to command pleasurable sensory feedback?”
may be the best single sentence I’ve read in 2007. Okay, so I don’t get around much…
I generally stay away from this argument because I don’t think any judgment like, “Religion has been a force for ill in the world” or “Religion has been a net positive force in the world” can be supported; the consequences of religion for human society are just too monumental for one to be able to speculate with any accuracy about the counterfactual world in which religion never existed.
That caveat in mind, it strikes me as odd to say that atheism is the defining characteristic of a regime in much the same way that it is odd to say that this is a central theme (perhaps among others) in Philip Pullman’s books. There are some historical regimes that have actively tried to suppress religion. Still, I don’t think it is historically accurate to claim that the suppression of religion was the primary goal of any of these regimes. Stalin and Mao wanted to expand their sphere of influence and they used whatever means necessary to achieve this. It turns out that in both cases the suppression of traditional religion was helpful since it made room for their own cults of personality. The suppression of religion was instrumental in achieving their broader goals; I think it’s contrary to the historical record to claim that the suppression of religion was the ultimate goal of the USSR, Communist China or North Korea. Even for Marx, the elimination of religion is just one step on the road to a Communist utopia.
Contrast this with a regime like modern-day Iran. In the case of Iran, the central motivating principal is to create an Islamic society which is governed by Sharia law. Religion is the ultimate goal, not just an instrument.
For this reason, to say that the USSR and China were atheist regimes in the same way that the government of Iran is a religious regime is untrue.
I must have hit pretty close to the mark to getcha all riled up like that, huh, kid?
If you were closer, you might see better.
Ok, for those of you to whom my point may not have been clear enough to, my point was this. Education and communication are key. I live in the buckle of the bible belt and I see what happens to kids who are handed religion with an iron fist. The results are not always those desired. Kids are smart, and deserve a litte credit for being so, along with a little trust in that if you raise them well, with education and communication, they will come around to the right point of view. I believe in God and have faith and I want my kids to do so too, but I want to make sure that they have faith on their own and don’t just have my faith forced on them and I feel that the best way to acheive that is to not hide from books that have an opinion different from mine but the examine them, question them and discuss them together, to tell my children how I feel and why, and to see what they think and why and to DISCUSS these things. To talk about doubts, to talk about questions, as most parents know the “just because I said so” doesn’t really work. I don’t think things should be banned because I don’t agree with them, but that I will learn what I can from them and stregthen my beliefs with that knowledge. I’m sorry if this concept is a little out there for a few of you, but it is important to me that my children grow up confidient in their christian faith and beliefs rather than say I am a christian because my mother says I am.
Yes I realize my grammer sucked but I got a little in the moment, this is just all so Harry Potter, and that whole thing always set me off, my youngest became an avid reader with the help of those books and has gone on to read some really great books later because of them and we’ve never had a problem with him not knowing the difference from a fictional story or the truth. To be honest, they probably won’t see the movie, because my kids aren’t interested, but I still stand by my point. If, and my kids are older, we see the movie we’ll talk about it after.
“Realist. Realist. Time to come home!”
Along with the non-argument “It’s Just Fiction!” in discussions about rot like The DaVinci Code and The Golden Compass, one often hears another argument that goes like this: “Is your faith so weak that you can’t handle something that challenges it? Kids need to know about competing views in the real world. Don’t shelter them. Teach them to think. Let them read whatever and discuss it. My faith is strong, so I can read something contrary to it and I have the tools to refute it.” And so on.
The problem is that this ignores the vital point: Deliberately reading something known to be hostile to faith and morals without a good reason is wrong. Morally corrupt fiction is little different than pornography. No Catholic can reasonably claim that their faith is strong enough to look at smut because looking at pornography is wrong in and of itself. The one reasonable difference is that it is not always immediately apparent that certain reading material is bad like pornography is immediately recognizable as such, but you can investigate before reading, and should something still get under your radar, you don’t rationalize, you get rid of it and find something good to read instead. It is not for nothing that the examination of conscience in my prayer book asks, “Did I fail, before going to a show or reading a book, to find out its moral implications, so as not to put myself in immediate danger of sinning and in order to avoid distorting my conscience?”
For instance, yesterday I happened to be looking at lyrics from a certain rock band. In it it a saw a thoroughly offensive remark about Our Lady. I stopped reading and will no longer listen or look at anything this band produces. Now, that offensive remark is easily dismissed, and it doesn’t weaken my faith directly, but it is still in the mind in the sense that I can’t unread it. It has taken up residence in my mind and even if my faith is strong, imagine what happens when a serious trial comes. That and all the garbage that has collected over the years will come rushing at me at once in an spiritual assault. I didn’t intend to expose my mind to poison in the same way no one intends their kids to ingest lead from toys made in China, but it happens. The defenders of bad books go beyond incidental exposure to bad things and say in so many words it is ok to knowingly take in this stuff, just let your faith take care of it. This is known as putting God to the test.
We can’t keep all the bad things away from our children. But it is one thing that kids get bad things in their minds from the coincidences of living, and another thing altogether to let things get to them through willful indifference, or worse, deliberate exposure to evil in some wacky rationalization of “preparing them for real life.” As Our Lord said, “Temptations are sure to come, but woe to him by whom they come.”
I can already hear the What-If Monkeys asking, “What if I have a good reason for reading a bad book? After all, I need to defend the Faith and refute it don’t I?” I’ve had dozens of conversations about bad books, movies, etc. and in every case the defender approved or even praised the work in question. When it was demonstrably shown to be bad then, and only then, did the defender of moral garbage go down the path of strong vs. weak faith, defending the faith, refuting, blah, blah, blah. It was an escape hatch. In short, I’ve yet to see a refutation of a bad book by people defending reading them.
When Pullman and their ilk go into gymnastics trying to explain away their flagrant assaults on faith, we should pray for anyone swallowing it for the enlightenment to ask, “What am I pretending not to know?”
That’s a good story. I think you just can’t bear to let a gorgeous guy like me out of your sight.
Meet my good friend Jeff Overstreet.
Why is it that I keep expressly rejecting the definite article, and you (and Nihil) keep putting it in?
I never claimed, and don’t know that anyone else has claimed, that “the suppression of religion was THE primary goal of any of these regimes.” In fact, I expressly disclaimed any such statement. Unless someone has claimed that (and you were quoting me), you would seem to be setting up a straw man.
On the other hand, it concedes too much to retreat all the way to “There are some historical regimes that have actively tried to suppress religion.” The truth is somewhere between the overstatement of the first and the understatement of the second.
Marxism as an ideology is not simply a political philosophy that been held by regimes that have at times actively tried to suppress religion. Along with its various offshoots, it is a socio-political-economic interpretation of history and human affairs that is fundamentally atheistic, materialistic and hostile to religion.
It’s certainly not the only possible atheistic socio-political-economic interpretation of history and human affairs, nor is it my argument that it is the best, most logical, or most obvious socio-political-economic expression of atheism. Atheists are as welcome as anyone to debunk its errors (other than the error of atheism, of course) and to uphold other socio-political-economic ideologies as preferable, and even as more consistent with an atheistic worldview, at least in principle.
But the fact remains that Marxism represents a major and hugely influential effort to understand and interact with historical, economic and social realities from a point of view that is in fact fundamentally atheistic, materialistic and hostile to religion.
Philip Pullman, in an interview with my friend Peter Chattaway, said, “But the problem with Soviet Russia wasn’t the atheism, it was the totalitarianism.” I have no particular problem with that, especially since he goes on to say, “The totalitarianism is also the problem with Saudi Arabia, as it was with the Taliban’s Afghanistan, with Calvin’s Geneva, with the Inquisition’s Spain…”
If we can agree that totalitarianism can be adopted by either religious or irreligious points of view, and that it is totalitarianism, not religion or irreligion, that is the problem with such regimes, I think we will have significantly advanced the level of the discussion.
On the other hand, in the same interview Pullman falls into the religion-baiting blame-shifting game popular among some atheists by claiming that “the purest example of theocracy in the twentieth century was Soviet Russia”!
This is a blatantly ideological maneuver in which everything I like about any camp, movement or tradition, mine or others, is credited to mine, and everything I don’t like about any camp, movement or tradition, mine or others, is blamed on the other side. Extremism is thus equated with religion, even though it is patently obvious that (a) religion can be non-extreme and (b) irreligious points of view can be extreme.
If atheist regimes like Soviet Russia are “theocracies,” then the jig is up and all worldviews, including Pullman’s comparatively non-extremist atheism, are religious in nature. Pullman’s religious persuasion happens to be non-violent and non-extreme, somewhat as my Catholic persuasion is non-violent and non-extreme, while other religous persuasions from the Taliban to Stalinism have been violent and extreme.
However, we have too many useful words already for extremism, totalitarianism, etc., to allow the word “religion” to be hijacked by irreligious polemicists as a pejorative term for a political approach that has been wielded by supernaturalist and materialist ideologies alike.
Bullseye, SDG.
Sorry about that, I have not been reading your posts in this thread as carefully as I should have (I’ve mostly been reading a few comments, then chiming in, then realizing that Elesiek or Nihil said something similar and you [SDG] already posted a response). At any rate, I think the point in my post holds up if the definite article is omitted.
The suppression of religion was an instrumental goal for the USSR, China and North Korea; it was not even one among a few goals that the regimes sought for their own sake – your argument that they sometimes defended religion in order to better destroy it later falls flat. They sometimes defended religion because it aided their ultimate goals of expanding the personal influence of the dictator over his regime and of expanding the power of the regime in the world. If supporting the church served their other goals, they would have supported religions and maintained that their regime was in accordance with Christian principles as Hitler did.
Second, regarding Marxism. I doubt very much that Marx himself would have advocated the suppression of religion that existed in the USSR or China (nor would he have approved of these regimes!). Marx believed that religion would wither away and die as social and economic conditions improved for the masses. I know of no place in his writings where he suggests that the government should actively prevent people from engaging in religious practice, especially if they are still poor and oppressed! I agree that the USSR and China distorted Marx’s writings on this point in order to justify the suppression of religion; but because Marx himself would likely have opposed this, one cannot appeal to the Marxism of these regimes to argue that this suppression was a fundamental rather than instrumental goal.
If you mean only that these regimes were atheistic in the sense that they had 1) no fundamental attachment to the principal of religious freedom and 2) no state religion other than the cult of personality of the dictator, then I acknowledge this point, but I don’t think this makes them atheistic. The principal of religious freedom is a relatively recent invention and it is incorrect to say that all states which were not theocratic and did not embrace religious freedom were atheistic.
I agree with you that it is unhelpful to call Soviet Russia a theocracy. I think Pullman’s point here is that the USSR played off of people’s religious inclinations by trying to get them to acknowledge the superior authority of a being they had never met due to his ability to guide them towards a better life. I don’t know if religious impulses abetted Stalin in this way, but the idea is not completely implausible; like many historical conjectures, it is rather difficult to test in any rigorous way.
I should clarify one point:
I am in fact saying here that there has never been an atheistic state and likely never will be. Atheism is not a substantive doctrine and it is not something that can act as a fundamental unifying principal of a society; simply saying that religion is false does not suggest any particular course of action.
One could imagine a state that was atheistic in the same sense that Iran is theocratic – such a state would do whatever was necessary to root out religion. But of course, no one – including atheists – would want to live in such a state, because atheists themselves value many things and don’t necessarily have strong views about whether it would be good if religion disappeared (let alone advocating its suppression). While there are reasons for theists to want to live in a Theocracy, there are only much weaker reasons why atheists would want to live in an Atheocracy of the sort described above; for this reason, such a government is unlikely ever to exist.
The suppression of religion was an instrumental goal for the USSR, China and North Korea; it was not even one among a few goals that the regimes sought for their own sake
This is blatantly false. Marxism has clearly and overtly attempted to destroy religion.
If there were other benefits, well, was Puritan Massachuetts not a theocracy because they found religious dissenters attacked authority and so were seditious?
Mary, I believe you’re just mistaken about this because it is a lie repeated endlessly in religious circles.
I might be wrong as I have not read all of Marx’s writings, but from what I have read, I see no indication that he would seek to suppress religion. He simply believes that religion is false and that it would be unnecessary in a Communist utopia. Please, show me a quote from Marx where he advocated the forceful suppression of religious beliefs among the common man.
I agree that the USSR and China were actively hostile towards religion; that point is not in dispute. The question is whether this policy was instrumental or intrinsic to the goals of those regimes. I’m saying that it is not intrinsic either to Marxism (their stated goal) or to Totalitarianism (their actual goal). It just turns out that these Totalitarian regimes found the suppression of religion to be useful.
At any rate, I think SDG and I may actually agree more than I have been letting on.
We agree that both religious and non-religious societies could be liberal or totalitarian and that the existence of totalitarian societies of either sort does not bear on the truth of religious claims.
Perhaps we disagree most about the analogy that Pullman draws between religion and Stalinism. As I pointed out above, I would not argue that religion has had on net a negative effect on society. I’m also not sure about Pullman’s point about submission to authority being an impulse which religion promotes that was co-opted by totalitarian regimes (I think this is most plausible in the context of the Catholic Church although even then I have reservations).
That said, I do think there is a core aspect of religion which is harmful – this is the idea that it is alright to believe something on the basis of personal experience even if that belief is not supported by objective evidence. I think this is the same fallacy that is prevalent among people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. I realize that religious intellectuals believe that there is evidence for religious claims (historical evidence, scientific evidence and a kind of philosophical evidence having to do with free will and morality).
However, I think the typical religious person (including many of the people who post at this site) does not care much for this kind of evidence – they don’t care whether their belief is supported by objective reasons. They care only about whether their belief seems true for them and seems consistent with their personal experience whatever experts in science, history and philosophy might think. This strikes me as a sure path to error.
“However, I think the typical religious person (including many of the people who post at this site) does not care much for this kind of evidence – they don’t care whether their belief is supported by objective reasons.”
And I think this goes for most people, religious or not.
I agree with you that everyone has trouble determining whether their beliefs are supported by objective reasons, religious or not and that the vast majority of people make no attempt to determine what experts in science, philosophy or history think about these issues.
But I think non-religious people would regard this as a fault or at least, a necessary consequence of the fact that they have limited time and other things to do; I think many religious people regard a reliance on personal experience as opposed to objective evidence as a virtue and see it as part of having “faith”.
Point granted, with the caveat that I suspect it might could similarly be argued that all regimes, qua regimes, are basically ordered toward maintaining or extending power, and, while they variously align with or make use of the convictions and principled goals of both citizens and leaders, such actual convictions are always held by individuals, not by “regimes” per se. They are thus always “instrumental” from the regime point of view, which remains fundamentally interested in maintaining or extending power.
I suspect this is true even in “theocractic” regimes like Iran, where a religiously motivated goal like, e.g., the destruction of Israel is held up as a religious and principled goal of the regime, but in practice is strategically deployed by the regime as a means of securing power. A stated commitment to the destruction of Israel secures for the regime a particular cast in civil discussion, identifies the regime with a particular outlook, and implicates opposition to the regime in various ways.
I’m not saying that there aren’t individuals in government in Iran who personally want to see Israel blown off the map — just as there have certainly been individuals in Marxist regimes who personally wanted to see churches bulldozed and clerical heads roll. From a regime point of view, though, such measures tend to be instrumental to the goal of maintaining or extending power.
I don’t know that I quite said that; my basic point there was that even from an anti-religious point of view, frontal assaults on religion can easily be counter-productive and even backfire (cf. the anti-clerical campaigns of Communist Mexico, Miguel Pro, etc.).
While it may well have served Hitler’s purposes at times to align himself rhetorically with Christianity — along with Germanic and classical paganism — it is equally true that Hitler and the Nazi regime were fundamentally hostile to Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular, as attested by Nazi records and documents. The principles of the National Reich Church included the extermination of “the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.”
Even when church leaders offered no resistance or otherwise cooperated with the regime, Nazism did not favor established religion. (It did establish the largest interfaith religious community ever assembled: the “priest block” of the Dachau concentration camp.)
Historical questions about what Marx personally taught vs. what various strands or offshoots held or practiced, while an important subject in its own right, seems to me a tangent here. Stalinist-style Communism may or may not be a Marxist heresy, but it remains in its own right a socio-political-economic interpretation of history and human affairs that is fundamentally atheistic, materialistic and hostile to religion. The historical apportioning of credit or blame for this development or heresy seems to me to have no direct bearing on the present discussion.
No, I don’t mean only that. I mean that they officially adhered to and advocated a materialist interpretation of reality, and viewed religion per se in a pejorative light.
That is an interesting inclination for people to have.
Once again, I have to thank Jason for making the points I wanted to, except much more clearly and without the need for my questionable wit. Thank you!
I agree that the USSR and China distorted Marx’s writings on this point in order to justify the suppression of religion; but because Marx himself would likely have opposed this, one cannot appeal to the Marxism of these regimes to argue that this suppression was a fundamental rather than instrumental goal.
Does this mean that if a state is religious but you maintain they distorted the religious writings, someone else can’t appeal to their religious nature to explain the actions of the state?
Cool.
Ridiculous, but cool.
Given that Marx called for a great many things that were subsequently demanded by force, I do not think you can claim it is a distortion of Marxism to read
“Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. ”
and proceed to forcibly suppress religion as “illusory happiness”.
After all, if you don’t forcibly suppress it, you are effectively denying them real happiness.
“I think many religious people regard a reliance on personal experience as opposed to objective evidence as a virtue and see it as part of having “faith”.”
On what do you base this?
Also, “objective” evidence is not synonymous with evidence drawn exclusively from scientific materialism.
You might find great comfort in the idea that we can believe nothing but what we can (at least potentially) measure or plot on a graph, but that does not seem to stack up with lived human experience. How do you measure poetry? How do you weigh art? Of what benefit is music?
As I have said, your version of the universe explains everything, alright. It also just seems to leave out everything. To paraphrase Chesterton; the circle you draw is complete and perfect, but it is a very small circle.
I admire the pro-atheism types who have been commenting on this blog. At the very least, they seem to be operating under the assumption that ideas are important, that they matter, and that they have consequences.
A natural extension of this understanding, however, means that there are some good ideas and some bad ideas.
Naturally, in the name of improving the human condition, they are advocating the suppression of “bad” ideas like religion and the promotion of “good” ideas like materialism.
But the question is how did religion earn the reputation as something “bad” in the first place? Oh, that is right: by oppressively imposing strictures on what ideas are good for society (and individual spiritual growth) and what ideas are bad.
Now, without getting into the whole big argument over whether or not that is an accurate depiction of what religion has actually done, I do not think anyone can deny the irony that these atheists are undeniably trying to do just that.
Naturally, in the name of improving the human condition, they are advocating the suppression of “bad” ideas like religion and the promotion of “good” ideas like materialism… I do not think anyone can deny the irony that these atheists are undeniably trying to do just that.
Pullman says, “As for the atheism, it doesn’t matter to me whether people believe in God or not, so I’m not promoting anything of that sort. What I do care about is whether people are cruel or whether they’re kind, whether they act for democracy or for tyranny, whether they believe in open-minded enquiry or in shutting the freedom of thought and expression. Good things have been done in the name of religion, and so have bad things; and both good things and bad things have been done with no religion at all. What I care about is the good, wherever it comes from.”
Getting back to the point, though. The whole idea of Pullman’s book is silly in that it does not attack Christianity nor Christian beliefs but attacks a caricature of them.
The book is a literary burning effigy of Christianity. But it is not Christianity.
Is Pullman aware of this? I think he might be. The question arises is this then just propaganda? Is this just something meant to give children the willies when catechists start talking about the majesterium, dogma, and so forth? I think we can at least say this conclusion has merit given his stated stance on Catholicism.
But could there be more to it? Hear me out now. There are other areas in which effigies are employed, namely voodoo. This is entirely my personal take on the whole affair. I believe Pullman has not just created a literary effigy, but a literary voodoo doll in an attempt to curse the Church.
Too weird, you say? The man thinks god could exist in space, whatever that means. If he is looney enough to wax Scientologist, then why not some other cult? A lot of these militant atheists do hold to some kee-razy ideas. You would not expect them to believe in things like curses and reincarnation, but many of the most vocal do in fact believe just that.
But back to the caricature aspect. It is a shame, really, that the Christianity he attacks in his book is not more like the real thing because it ruins the victory at the end of the novel.
The characters are supposed to kill God and Pullman writes that they succeed.
How sad. Because in actuality, they fail miserably.
You see, in order for the analogy to correspond completely with Christianity (or any traditional theistic belief system), Pullman’s characters would have to be successful in killing Pullman himself.
Now that would make for one interesting book.
Pullman says, “As for the atheism, it doesn’t matter to me whether people believe in God or not, so I’m not promoting anything of that sort. What I do care about is whether people are cruel or whether they’re kind, whether they act for democracy or for tyranny, whether they believe in open-minded enquiry or in shutting the freedom of thought and expression. Good things have been done in the name of religion, and so have bad things; and both good things and bad things have been done with no religion at all. What I care about is the good, wherever it comes from.”
Christianity, as an organized religion, does not hold to the idea that good cannot come from non-believers, or non-Christian systems. Therefore, according to your quote, Pullman has no reason to attack organized religion in the form of Christianity.
Yippee!
But wait a second, why did he write the book again?
You see, in order for the analogy to correspond completely with Christianity (or any traditional theistic belief system), Pullman’s characters would have to be successful in killing Pullman himself.
No, they would have to be successful in killing yourself. Pullman is just your personal voodoo doll.
SDG,
The main point I’m trying to make is that the regimes you mention are not characterized by atheism in the same way that the Iranian government and theocracies more generally are characterized by theism. There is certainly a continuum here. I would say that Stalin’s regime was more atheistic than George W. Bush’s Presidency is religious, but less atheistic than Mary I’s regime was Catholic or Iran’s regime is Islamic.
As you note, several distinctions are in order. We must distinguish between:
1) The philosophical movement underlying the broad agenda of a regime
2) The publicly stated goals of a regime
3) Positions held by individuals in that regime
I am mainly concerned with points 1) and 2).
Regarding point 2), while I agree that Stalin’s regime was generally hostile to religion, it was not uniformly so, and at times Stalin actively abetted the growth of the church in order to suppress nationalist opposition to his regime. Contrast this with Iran – can you point to instances when the Iranian government promoted secularism in order to increase its power? Publicly, the Iranian government has been unwavering in its support for the idea of an Islamic society. The same cannot be said of Stalin’s opposition to religion.
Regarding point 1), I agree with you that this is a grayer area. Marx and Lenin believed in the separation of church and state, but not in the active persecution of religion. Stalin clearly personally disagreed and was not completely alone in this opinion among communists.
Agreed, and to call it a religious inclination may not do justice to its real origins. It may well be that it was incorporated into religions only after being fostered by political authorities for thousands of years.
StubbleSpark, as usual you are dead on!
I can potentially see a point to be made in that direction, while at the same time various disparities and disanalogies between the two kinds of cases raise questions for me as to how clearly the point can be made, and how valuable a point it turns out to be.
For one thing, as you’ve pointed out, atheism is not a positive program in the way that religion, or a particular religion, is a positive program. God, or the gods, or heaven, is properly the object of passion and positive action in a way that their absence isn’t necessarily. Of course anti-religiosity, as distinct from mere atheism, can be as fervent as religiosity; but a regime need not be anti-religious in order to be both atheistic and totalitarian — and in that case we might expect its atheism to be in some sense less prominent than the positive religiosity of an officially religious regime. That doesn’t mean, however, that atheism is necessarily any less foundational to the regime’s ideology, as materialism is necessarily the philosophical foundation of real Marxism. It’s just that non-supernaturalism per se isn’t as exciting in and of itself as supernaturalism. :‑)
For another thing, historico-anthropologically and socio-culturally speaking, religion rather than irreligion is sort of the human default. While skepticism and unbelief are certainly not modern phenomena per se, they have typically been outside the mainstream and not associated with The Establishment. The effort to organize or run a society on principles grounded in an atheistic or materialistic worldview is a distinctly modern novelty, and in many (most?) places where the experiment has been tried such principles have been more or less imposed from above upon a culture that was still natively in the religious human mainstream.
It might thus be argued that relatively speaking, the atheist cast of, e.g., Leninist Marxism represented as significant a philosophical preference or “bias” as the religious casts of many theocratic or officially religious societies. To take an irreligious tack at all as the philosophical basis for organizing and running a society, especially in a society with a natively religious cast, might be felt to express at least as radical a preference as even moderately religious governance in a natively religious society. Of course the state imposition of religious extremism, as in the Taliban, is another matter, though quite disparate in many ways from the most extreme anti-religious persecutions in the Mexican states, the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China and difficult to quantify in relation to one another.
What can be said, in that connection, is that whatever character or significance one wants to assign to the atheistic convictions of particular regimes, it remains true that the atrocities under such regimes — Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kruschchev, Kim Jong-il and so on — dwarf the atrocities that can be ascribed to religious regimes of any kind. Even if you want to argue that atheism wasn’t itself the operative motivation in those atrocities, as religion was in religiously inspired killings during the Crusades and Inquisition, the fact remains that even the most fervent religious regimes have not approached the atrocities committed under regimes that were in fact atheistic.
You can argue if you want that “the problem wasn’t the atheism,” etc., but the correlation remains to be explained. There does seem to be some sort of causal connection, even if (as seems likely) the atheism is not itself the direct inspiration for the atrocities.
In part I think this is because atheism necessarily eventually undermines true humanism; for all that religious beliefs have been used to justify all sorts of atrocities, in the long run it is religion, not irreligion, that offers our best defense against the state’s propensity to put expedience ahead of human rights. Indeed, irreligion ultimately offers no cogent defense against whatever anyone judges to be expedient or necessary; human dignity is a concept with no ultimate meaning on a thoroughly materialist interpretation of reality.
Atheism thus may not necessarily itself be a direct motivator of atrocities, as misguided religious passion can be, but it seems to be at least a fertile breeding ground, if not a necessary precondition, for atrocities on the kind of scale pioneered by irreligious, not religious, regimes.
This week on Non-Sequitur Theatre:
No, they would have to be successful in killing yourself. Pullman is just your personal voodoo doll.
The voodoo doll was my analogy to describe just how crude and hopelessly inaccurate Pullman’s vision of Christianity is. It means (sigh, I have to spell it out) he does not have the guts to take on the reality of Christianity, but has to attack a soulless, mindless, and purposeless form of Christianity (for being soulless, mindless, and purposeless of all things). Do you know this is illogical? At best, it extends no further than an unsubstantiated statement of opinion.
The statement regarding his characters’ failure to actually “kill god” is — oh forget it. If you did not get it then further discussion would prove to require more attention than can be paid here.
This link http://johncwright.livejournal.com/134046.html posted by a previous commenter is actually right-on. It provides a glimpse at what a horridly bad choice Pullman’s novels were for a movie series. It basically eviscerates the entire series as an exercise in pointlessness and pins that defect on Pullman’s atheistic cosmology.
Here is a sample:
Oh, and the climax is where the main character commits euthanasia on a bunch of ghosts, intellectual beings whose torment is that they are bored. Gosh, boredom is a bad thing, I guess, but I would not want someone to pull a Dr. Kevorkian on me for it. And the ghosts are happy, not because they get reincarnated– that would smack too much of religion for our Mr. Pullman’s tastes– they get recycled.
Joy of joys! Wonder of wonders! I know a lot of people who believe in recycling, but this is the first time I’ve come across characters willing to die for it. Too bad she did not keep the ghost of Socrates or Shakespeare around, just for historians to question, or the dead grandfather I never got the chance in life to talk to, and tell him how I loved him. Somehow, pure oblivion is supposed to be better than a disembodied life, even for Buddhists and Neoplatonists and Gnostics, whose only goal in life is to escape from material desires.
Which brings me to my point. Unlike the suck of the Matrix, this suck can be avoided. If someone had gotten in a time machine and told me how the Matrix would have ended, I would have shook his hand and left the theatre to go to something more useful with my time (after all those years I suffered from unprecedented amounts of belly button lint).
This is the exact same suck only it is not too late. We have the power. We can save people from investing in this dumbest of sermonizing nonsense.
The key? Well, the linked review for one. And other reviews like it. The word needs to get out. Save us from the suck.
What’s an impersonal voodoo doll?
SDG,
I’ll try to respond to your interesting points at some point tomorrow.
Other posters, if you are going to reveal plot details of Pullman’s books, please preface your posts with a spoiler warning. This thread has piqued my interests and I think I’ll probably try to read them at some point, but I’d prefer not to know beforehand what is going to happen!
What’s an impersonal voodoo doll?
Personal as in private as in his imagination.
Spe Salvi 21 “His [Marx] real error is materialism: man, in fact, is not merely the product of economic conditions, and it is not possible to redeem him purely from the outside by creating a favourable economic environment.”
Marx didn’t have to write about his atheism because his whole theory is based on the assumption that the material world is all there is. Marx is a materialist, believing that economic forces are the greatest influences on man and once those are set aright, paradise will be achieved. Marxism cannot be understood apart from atheism. That is why religion is the enemy of communism.
Marx himself confirms this: “The criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism” – Introduction to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.
Marx could afford to gloss over the details (like he did for most of it) because he was not a revolutionary but a philosopher. Spe Salvi recounts what happened when Lenin tried to find what to do *after* the revolution. Marx was no help.
So, when we look in practice at the USSR, we see that as soon as the revolution was secure they set up a “Society of the Godless” or “Union of Belligerent Atheists”. See wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Godless
And your comparison with Iran does not work. Virtually everyone in Iran is already Muslim, so it is not hard to keep it that way. There were hardly any atheists in the USSR at the revolution, so the Party had to be practical. In the same way, when Islam conquered Christian territories (like Spain) they would tolerate the People of the Book, imposing a special tax, hoping that over generations they would simply disappear. It almost worked in Russia, too. Unofficial figures suggest that 2/3s of citizens were irreligious and half of the party was atheist. Very, very different from the situation under the Tsars.
Then you’re psychic! I didn’t know. But I guess you knew that.
Then you’re psychic! I didn’t know. But I guess you knew that.
No psychic. He offered what he said was his “personal take,” to include his effigy of Pullman.
You’re kidding.
And you offered your personal take without saying so, to include your effigy of him. And now I’ve offered mine, and said so, to include my effigy of you. Soon the circle will be complete.
I just wanted to take a moment to thank Scott W. for his awesome explanation of why this movie (and related books) should be avoided, even by those “strong in their faith”.
Soon the circle will be complete.
Now I have that Darth Vader line stuck in my head. Thanxs 😉
Now I have that Darth Vader line stuck in my head. Thanxs 😉
David B.,
You didn’t know?
SDG is your father!
“Will the circle be unbroken?”
There. Now you have a Gnitty Gritty Dirt Band line stuck in your head.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’ll never join you, SDG!!!!!!!!
Too. Much. Music. Can’t. Survive. Much. Longer…
Darth Vader = home run
Han Solo = 0 for 2
There’s always “The Circle of Life” from The Lion King…..
Hans Solo? Sounded more like Obi-Wan.
Darth Vader = home run
Han Solo = 0 for 2
Laugh it up, Fuzzball.
Han Solo
to clarify. 🙂
And the spinning in the media has already started.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071204003305.4utrub9c&show_article=1
However, the sanitized version of Pullman’s book has failed to appease the Catholic League, which gathers some 350,000 members, and which has already been sending out leaflets denouncing the film.
“The Catholic League wants Christians to stay away from this movie precisely because it knows that the film is bait for the books,” said president William Donohue.
“Unsuspecting parents who take their children to see the movie may be impelled to buy the three books as a Christmas present. And no parent who wants to bring their children up in the faith will want any part of these books,” he added.
The League already took on the movie world in 2006 to denounce the blockbuster “The Da Vinci Code” and its central tenant that Jesus Christ had a child by Mary Magdalene whose descendants still survive today.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops however has been more nuanced in its approach warning in a review of “The Golden Compass” of its “anti-clerical subtext, standard genre occult elements, character born out of wedlock, a whiskey-guzzling bear.”
But it adds that “taken purely on its own cinematic terms, (it) can be viewed as an exciting adventure story with a traditional struggle between good and evil, and a generalized rejection of authoritarianism.”
This is why the USCCB needs to get out in front of this issue. Honest Catholics will look at that review (just as this journalist has) and say, “well, the bishops are saying it’s a good enough movie – I guess that Catholic League is just a bunch of extremist crackpots. I’ll take the kids to see it over the Christmas weekend.”
There. Now you have a Gnitty Gritty Dirt Band line stuck in your head.
bill912,
It’s the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band
The Gritty Gritty Dirt Band is a cover band (obviously, covered in even more grit)
I just want to say for any silent on-lookers that there are still Christians out here who do not look with gratitude or admiration at a man who, on no aquaintance and without any private information, publicly refers to another gentleman as a liar.
It’s enough to make you think Mr. Pullman has a point, at least about the negative effects of religion-gone-bad.
Why not erase the post, bro? In the court of morality, Satan is the accuser, God is the Judge…and that means that the only place for you and me to stand is before the bench right alongside Mr. Pullman. If we make it and he gets put away for lying I doubt we’ll be saying “Neener neener neener…” Unless perhaps we have never done a dishonest thing ourselves. Your accusation is unbecoming to a Son of God, and that’s putting it mildly.
“In the court of morality, Satan is the accuser…”
So why are you accusing?
Please, enough of the sanctimony. Was it also unbecoming a son of God when St. Paul repeatedly called his flock in Galatia “stupid” and wished that those who troubled them would castrate themselves? Or when St. Paul said false apostles were committing the sin of idolatry by worshipping their bellies?
So, no Christian is allowed to call out anybody on lying unless they have (A) met the person and (B) have first-hand information?
That will certainly make it more comfortable for the liars, especially those who are enemies of Christ. They need not worry about having their motives revealed in public.
Mr. Pullman is working through his books to destroy Christianity, and he is obfuscating on this point in the hope of selling more books (and movie tickets) because frank atheism doesn’t exactly spell “box-office smash”.
And we should ignore this based on your private idea of some sort of “gentlemen’s code”?
Han Solo
to clarify. 🙂
Wait a minute. So which of us is Darth?
Great, now I have Fictional Character Identity Confusion Disorder.
We as Christians have a duty to place the most charitable read reasonably possible on Mr. Pullman’s words and actions.
In the course of doing so, we need to look at the objective facts, use our God-given ability to reason, and make a judgment about the truth.
Not a judgment about the state of Mr. Pullman’s soul in relation to God, but a judgment about the truth of Mr. Pullman’s words and actions.
If the objective facts, reasonably and charitably interpreted, demonstrate that Mr. Pullman is lying, it would be uncharitable, both to Mr. Pullman and to those who will be impressed with his lies, to not defend the truth.
Or so says St. Francis de Sales.
I don’t think I accused the this post’s author of anything, though I did criticise him. Largely because I understand the darkness that creeps into the soul when we start acting as someone else’s judge.
Criticism is acceptable and even essential. I’d like to see some intelligent informed criticism of the books by a Christian who has read them and understands English literature. Although even in cases of criticism, I try to save my worst tongue-lashings for those who perpetrate falsehood or take advantage of people under the guise of religion. As St. Paul said, “When I told you to have nothing to do with these evil people, I wasn’t talking about unbelievers (because in that case we would have to go out of the world entirely) but about those who go by the name of brothers.” Twisted religion is a far more dangerous evil than straight-out badness. Has anyone here put serious research into what went wrong in Western Christianity to get us to this point, at which thoughtful educated people of imagination like Mr Pullman have such grevious complaint with the Church?
Well, yes I think it would be a better world and a purer church if we only spoke with absolute confidence of those things of which we have first-hand knowledge. I’m sure we could come up with exceptions but it’s a good rule to start off with. How often we make our religion look foolish otherwise. Slow to speech, slow to anger, quick to be generous in our assesment of others’ motives and intentions…that’s a far holier way to go about our relationships with other human beings than to feel that our first duty in every situation is to have something to say.
For instance, when Mr Pullman said that his books were about killing God, what if he said it in a tone of voice that indicated joking, or personification of someone else’s likely beliefs? We have no way of knowing, do we? Unless we think the press is infallible.
If that’s a gentleman’s code I think it’s sad that a lady has to teach it to you. And I think it would be even sadder if an atheist like Mr. Pullman should turn out to have a higher code of conduct than the average Christian.
Finally, I hope no one is implying that if we don’t stop Mr. Pullman and Richard Dawkins and the like, they are going to get away with something. The fate of the world does not hang on our shoulders. On the other hand our own salvation requires great attention.
I wish you peace.
David B: It wasn’t about you, dude. :‑) The scorecard reads: “Two prior Han Solo allusions and nobody bites; one Vader and the combox goes Star Wars-happy.” That’s all.
SDG,
Okay!
goes away redfaced
SDG,
Dude: ‘a particularly well-dressed male or one who is unfamiliar with life outside a large city.’
How did you know!?!
I only thought yo waz talcing to me ’cause Esau said yo waz liik Dart Vator.
Oh great!
First, I find out Doctor Who is gay and now I discover that David B. is nuthin’ but a street thug!
Go figure!
The world has completely gone bonkers!
Must be Global Warming!
AR,
A few comments, in the order you have presented them. You said:
On the contrary, you directly accused him of conduct unbecoming to a Son of God, to put it mildly.
You also said:
I try to save mine for people who try to deceive children by disguising the ultimate lie as truth.
(And we are entitled, if not required, to take Mr. Pullman at his word that he is trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief. We are not required to hurt ourselves with complicated gymnastics maneuvers to try and cast some possible favorable spin on the matter. Neither reason nor charity requires that.)
You also said:
Like it or not, you have made your own judgment here which, I respectfully submit, is far more dangerous and far less charitable. With evidence that Mr. Pullman is an atheist trying to undermine Christian beliefs by writing “charming” books about killing God, you have pronounced him to be (with reference to no additional evidence) “thoughtful,” “educated” and “imaginative.”
AR, I’ve campaigned for more charitable comments on this blog many times. But it stretches charity beyond any purpose to assume that Pullman was joking when he said he was trying to kill God. On that logic, doesn’t charity require us to assume that the original post on this site was also a joke? Your point amounts to arguing that because we can never be sure that people really mean what they are saying, we have to act as if no one ever says anything wrong. Forgive me if I prefer language to be useful.
On the other hand, Esquire, it seems like most people who review Pullman’s books, regardless of whether they agree with his philosophy, are impressed with his imagination and writing abilities. So I don’t think we should have any problem calling him a “thougtful education person of imagination.” He’s just a thoughtful educated person who is imagining a hopeless, joyless world.
Spe Salvi!
Esquire, remind me *never* to debate you.
francis03,
Point well-taken, although in context it seems to me that AR’s description of Mr. Pullman as “thoughtful” — “marked by careful reasoning” in my dictionary — implies that a world without God is something one can arrive at through careful reasoning. But I can see that I have probably carried that implication too far.
AR,
I should add that I agree with (but don’t always adhere to) the following:
bill912,
I can’t imagine what I’d find to debate you on. (Unless, of course, you’re a Cowboys fan.)
No, Esquire, I am not a fan of…that team. (Although I am a fan of John Wayne, Roy Rogers, and Gene Autry, and I try to live the Cowboy Code).
bill912,
Is your Catholicism tolerant enough to allow you to live by #4?
(Or #5, as the case may be.)
Esau wrote:
“Oh great!
First, I find out Doctor Who is gay…”
Say it isn’t so, Esau!! I mean, Capt Jack Harkness, who cares? Dumbledore, what’s the big deal? But Dr Who? What are your sources? Who told you? Do I have to burn all those novelizations I’ve accumulated over the years?
(Tongue firmly planted in my cheek….)
I try to save mine for people who try to deceive children by disguising the ultimate lie as truth.
Read carefully.
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
Read very, very, very carefully. You can find something about “under the guise of religion.” in there, I’m sure.
“If that’s a gentleman’s code I think it’s sad that a lady has to teach it to you.”
I think it’s sad that you think it (as you stated it) worthy of teaching.
The Apostle Paul didn’t hedge at pointing out liars;
1 Timothy 4:2 – “Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.”
John also;
1 John 2:22 – “Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.”
Of course, they were more concerned with defending the faith than they were with appeasing popular opinion.
“And I think it would be even sadder if an atheist like Mr. Pullman should turn out to have a higher code of conduct than the average Christian.”
Who is this “average Christian” you refer to here? Does he have a blog? It sounds more like the kind of straw man Pullman would concoct to bolster his baseless arguments than anything based in reality. I must say, you seem very impressed with Pullman. Very.
“Finally, I hope no one is implying that if we don’t stop Mr. Pullman and Richard Dawkins and the like, they are going to get away with something. The fate of the world does not hang on our shoulders…”
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Just roll over and let him do what he will. Don’t worry about those he may be deceiving, they can shift for themselves. The important thing is to be NICE, which means never accusing anyone of doing anything bad.
Those who agree with the following statement,
His Dark Materials is just a book.
must, in order to be consistent, agree with these statements:
Birth of a Nation is just a movie
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is just a book
Do you get it now?
LarryD,
Do I have to burn all those novelizations I’ve accumulated over the years?
I wouldn’t go that far.
If I were seriously of that opinion, I would similarly disregard all the magnificent works of Michelangelo — which I don’t.
On the subject of Torchwood though, after seeing the last two episodes on the BBC, I would seriously caution against viewership of a younger audience.
Two guys french kissing on screen?
Is this really something you want your children exposed to? Even more important, inviting the image into the minds of young impressionable children as something ‘normal’ and even ‘acceptable’?
It seems here that Russel T Davies may be attempting to advance his own agenda given his own orientation (of course, he may simply be aiming at some “shock value” in an attempt to promote his series) but, unfortunately, the integrity of the current Doctor Who series may, as a consequence, become compromised.
The latter is what I’m more concerned with.
Forget about Golden Compass. The movie is, if you believe the forecasts, will just go over $100 mm a big disappointment for a $180 mm production budget. As an antedote here is the trailer for Narnia: Prince Caspian that just went online:
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809244324/trailer
Good stuff (narnia, that is).
I wanna see the first seven minutes of “The Dark Knight” before “I Am Legend: The IMAX Experience.” I wonder if it’ll be available on the net…
When you go to bed tonight, pray for atheists. That’s what Christ would have done. While debating as it’s merits, it won’t win hearts overs. Modern man is starving to see the authentic, and as Catholics we need to show it to athiests by living our faith each day.
Esau – I was being facetious about the book burning.
I knew about Torchwood, and haven’t watched it because it crosses the line.
I agree with your comment on the integrity of Dr Who – but given the huge fan base of the original series, of which I am a member, Russell Davies has to be careful that he never crosses that line. He has moved towards that line from time to time, but he knows he has a profitable series (it’s won Best Drama and Best Writing and Best Actor awards in England ever since it’s made its return) and if he angers the older fans, it could lose a lot of steam. IMHO, at least.
Looking forward to the Christmas episode, though. I live in an area where we get Canadian channels, and they have in the past aired that episode the week after it airs in England. Hopefully, that trend will continue.
It’s getting the rotten tomato at Rotten Tomatoes: only 40% favorable at the moment.
LarryD,
About RT Davies, let’s hope so!
Looking forward to the Christmas episode too, but I just wished I could catch a glimpse of “Doctor Who: Time Crash” where Tenant, the current doctor, meets the doctor I knew from my childhood, Peter Davison — but that was when they used to show Doctor Who on PBS though!
Esau – there used to be a link on the Dr Who BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/index.shtml) where you could watch the episode – it was fairly short because it aired in conjunction with a children’s charity function – but I think the link has been disabled. There are photos and other info from that episode though.
Jason:
Regarding point 2), while I agree that Stalin’s regime was generally hostile to religion, it was not uniformly so, and at times Stalin actively abetted the growth of the church in order to suppress nationalist opposition to his regime.
Really? When? Stalin abetted the growth of the church, as you put it, in the 1940s, but because there was a war going on, and the German forces were a few miles out of Moscow, and he judged it a good idea to reopen the Churches to consolidate resistance against the Nazis, and united the splintered Russian society. At the same time, he reclaimed Tsarist history for propoganda purposes.
And after that, he made a place for a severely controlled Orthodox church in his plans. Just I’m blanking on where the bit about destroying nationalist opposition could come in.
Sorry, that last was me.
We probably do not have to worry about hearing
Pullman’s name again. This movie is the bomb of the year. Google Nikki Finke Deadline Hollywood daily. The movie made only about $9 mm Friday for a projected weekend of around $27 mm. This is disasterous for a movie with a supposed $150-200mm production budget before marketing costs. I actually went to see it. If you look you can catch the Catholic references. To be totally honest I wanted to see the cool Zeppelin and other aspects of this alternative universe. The movie itself was horrible. It felt rushed, like it was trying to cram everything in the 2 hour time frame, talky with dialogue basically consistenting of what dust is, what this does, and that is. No magic and no soul, perhaps not surprising for a movie based on a book by an athetist, unlike Narnia and LOTR movies. You never really feel you are part of this world which could of been really interesting.
So, Fox News today had a clip that you can see on Yahoo! And talking about the controversy about the movie, they mentioned what? That the USCCB found it just fine to watch and that clearly that meant those against it are overreacting.
And that, my friends, is what evil is, and it can only be corrected by the film reviewer of the USCCB losing his job.
Why is it that certain members of the hierarchy can always be counted on not to “take sides” – even against the enemies of Christ? It’s as if they’re saying we shouldn’t be too hasty in condemning the work of Satan… it might have it’s admirable qualities, too…
Wrong. It is impossible to be too hasty in condemning the work of those who would destroy the Church.
I looked up the report Michael suggested above and it is true. Apparently, the movie is one of the biggest bombs of the year. Reviews are either glowing or downright demeaning with slightly more of the latter. What is more, the negative reviews are coming from reviewers who hold openly negative views of Christians and Evangelicals. The positive reviews also seem to come from your typically a-Christian or anti-Christian crowd or from those many reviewers who have been paid off to call it a raucous sci-fi romp for all-ages.
Which it emphatically is not.
There are a lot of tragic blunders here but I think one of the biggest is the coyness of the original book series which did not explain that the whole point of godlessness was to open the door to exploratory adolescent sexuality.
In the DaVinci Code, we got the payoff of penis-worship along with godlessness right away. In Pullman’s work, you have to wait until book three to discover that.
And that is the bottom line in these sorts of endeavors, is it not? The whole atheist thing is all about opening us up to sex-worship.
Or whatever.
The unpopularity of the film underscores the depravity of the target audience, oddly enough.
Evil defeats itself.
I agree with Stubblespark, but I think it is important to clarify his point by adding that the audiences are in no way depraved because they are not interested in the movie. Since the overarching theme of Pullman’s trilogy is that the machinations of authority should not be allowed to separate us from doing whatever we want, using the language, form, and imagery of epic makes the whole thing seem overblown, self-important, and boring. Like Peter Kreeft says, art incarnates philosophy, and no doubt moviegoers prefer to see the theme of “teenagers should do whatever they feel” in its “American Pie” incarnation, rather than in the pseudo-Tolkien monstrosity, “The Golden Compass.” Tolkien writes about THE Incarnation, the Incarnation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in that at the end of his trilogy the King returns. What Tolkien writes merits the epic form, while Pullman merely pretends to be writing an epic and then reveals that he is really presenting a story about the importance of rebellion and its sexual payoff. That is a theme that does not need to be dressed up in the king’s robes.
Very good points, Yuugao. The philosophy behind His Dark Materials is more suited to Animal House than to epic drama.
Real heroism means sacrificing your own wants (and often needs) for a higher purpose. Pullman apparently believes there is no higher purpose than fulfilling your own wants and needs. He’s trying to spin a heroic tale from a fundamentally self-centered perspective, and it won’t fly.
Hi everybody!
I’ve been collecting links on The Golden Compass, Phillip Pullman, and His Dark Materials and have posted them over at my place. Updated the list today:
http://claresiobhan.stblogs.com/2007/12/10/stack-o-links-the-golden-compass-phillip-pullman-and-his-dark-materials/
Stop by if you get a chance!
Cheers,
Clare
(blogging over at Always Advent and wondering why atheists think *they’re* the only ones who have thought deeply about God’s existence, the nature of religious belief, and so on. People who say, “Let your children think for themselves!!” obviously think that every person of faith is a “nitwit”, and that once any person bothers to connect two brain cells together, he or she will immediately emerge from the fog and apostasize.)
http://claresiobhan.stblogs.com/
People who say, “Let your children think for themselves!!” obviously think that every person of faith is a “nitwit”, and that once any person bothers to connect two brain cells together, he or she will immediately emerge from the fog and apostasize.
I love the argument of “letting children think/choose for themselves”. How many other things should we let children determine on their own:
– Math? “2 + 2 is whatever you want it to be, honey…”
– English? “use whatever words you want however you want” (oh wait, that one’s already happened!)
– hygiene? “I’d like you to take a bath and brush your teeth, but you know your body best!”
– Science? “Gravity works just like in the cartoons – however you want until you notice it.”
– Use of tools? “I trust you to figure out how this hammer works. And I’m not worried about how you will get the screwdriver to work around the electrical outlet.”
Either religion is the most important thing in our (continued) existence, or it is the biggest scam in all of human history. Either way, it would seem to warrant a little more attention and training than a child will give it on their own.
Is it possible that a child’s seeing this movie when he/she has no Christian back-up system in their home could prove their spiritual undoing? I have not seen this movie, nor read the book, but I see no reason to support financially anyone whose stated purpose in writing is to “kill God” or the belief in God. Why would any believing parent or grandparent want to subject their progeny to such thinking?
I think you have twisted this slightly. The heroes a. don’t KILL god b. don’t kill GOD. The heroes let the character you see as god (who is a frail old angel) out of an imprisoning cell and he is so weak, the wind kills him. But this character(god) see’s this as a release from his own pain and suffering. This character however is not god, he is the first angel (If you knew the bible as well as you thought, you would realise that this was Lucifer) who took charge of the other angels. Also you have given the wrong point of view on some of these quotes. “My books are about killing god” He could have said this in a sarcastic way or meant supposedly about killing god. This applies to all other of your quotes. Anyway, so what, Pullman probably is expressing his atheist views, but then again so are you, so are other christians, so stop scapegoating.
In other words, “There is a chance Pullman wasn’t saying what he seemed to say, even if it is a direct quote, and what if he was? Shut up… free speech applies only to atheists.”.
As usual, you nailed it, Tim.
Ooops. I engaged in “Free-Speech-While-Catholic”, didn’t I?
“scapegoating…”? Who’s scapegoating? What are you talking about? Criticizing/Disagreeing isn’t scapegoating.
How about the fact that Pullman named the subtle knife “Æsahættr,” “god-destroyer”?
“…Pullman is probably expressing his atheist views, but then again so are you, so are other Christians…”
Christians are, by definition, not atheists; therefore, we don’t have any atheist views to express.
Josh,
The Authority is called “Yahweh” in the trilogy. The only person know as Yahweh is the LORD God of the Old Testement. Don’t pretend to be obtuse.
Oh, David B! How gauche! Mentioning an inconvenient fact!
Hmm. If God is not alive or does not exist why is Pullman trying to kill him? Atheism is a religion-it is a belief sytem – claiming one has no belief is a belief. Having no philosphy is a “philosophy”. The fact that pullman is trying to kill God proves he believes there is one and is threatened by not only his existance but the very idea of him. He obviously considers God a threat or he would not attack him. How foolish to hate something,that by your own admission, does not exist. If it is the “idea” of religion he hates, he still comes up a hypocrite because, as previously stated, athesim is a religion-a strongly held belief in an idea or person in which the follower of the idea or person seeks to convert others. Pullman is in fact an evangalist for atheism.
Maybe you should all just relax. Its just a book, some people will like it some people wont. If your afraid its going to brainwash your children give them some credit. Its a fantasy novel and Pullman has every right to put what he likes in it.
For me it was one of the greatest books ive ever read and Im glad he wrote them. Not because i hate those who believe in Christianity either. So you may not like it for your own reasons but dont wish it was never written because some people really enjoyed it. Just shutup and dont read it and get along with your life.
“…Pullman has every right to put what he likes in it.”
No one said that Pullman did not have the right to express his hatred for Christianity. No one said that Pullman did not have the right to lie. No one said that Pullman did not have the right to try to destroy the Church. Some pointed out that that was what he was doing.
“For me it was one of the greatest books ive(sic) ever read and Im(sic) glad he wrote them.”
So you like anti-Christian books. Some people liked “Mein Kampf”.
“Just shutup(sic) and dont(sic) read it and get along with your life.”
So, after falsely accusing others of saying that Pullman didn’t have the right to express his opinions, you tell them not to express theirs.
Pullman has not lied. One can make a case that he has lied but if one strives to give both him and his words the best possible interpretation instead of something less than the best, one cannot make the case that he has lied.
Pullman does not hate Christianity any more than the average practicing Christian hates atheism.
If Christianity’s hold on the mind is based on something so fragile as to be disturbed by a work of fiction, then one wonders why one would believe in such a thing on such a basis in the first place.
“Pullman has not lied.” That statement has already been shown to be false earlier in this thread.
“…the best possible interpretation…” In other words, pretend that words don’t mean what they mean.
“Pullman does not hate Christianity any more than the average practicing Christian hates atheism.” And you know what “the average practicing Christian” thinks how?
“If Christianity’s hold on the mind is based on something so fragile as to be disturbed by a work of fiction, then one wonders why one would believe in such a thing on such a basis in the first place.” It isn’t.
bill, you would seem to have to latch on to these quotations:
‘I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief’
That doesn’t mean he is trying to convert people to atheism, which is what he said or suggested he was not trying to do — be a militant atheist who was trying to convert people (not that there would be anything wrong with that). If I try to undermine the basis of belief in the theory of the Big Bang and I happen to be a Buddhist, that doesn’t mean I am trying to convert people to Buddhism.
‘saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God.’
Saying subversive things as above doesn’t mean that one is trying to convert people to atheism nor does writing something subversive about God mean that one is trying to convert people to atheism. If you want to argue this point, then it just proves my point that you are not giving him the benefit of the doubt nor giving his words the best possible interpretation which is what love would do, IMO.
Be that as it may, one cannot reliably attribut something said years ago to how a person feels today.
‘And you know what “the average practicing Christian” thinks how?’
In my experience with practicing Christians, having met thousands of them and been acquainted with perhaps hundreds of them, whenever the subject of atheism came up, I did not see any fondness or warmth or neutrality for that matter expressed towards atheism. Instead, I noticed distaste, disgust, intense disagreement and/or an indication that they wished atheism were eliminated from the face of the planet. It is possible that my experience which covers four continents and many more countries is not representative.
It isn’t.
If it isn’t — and I mean it not being so for both youth and adults — then why are you so worried about it. Perhaps not you personally, but why are so many urging that it be boycott. In fact, why have some openly expressed fears of what would happen should parents after having seen The Golden Compass would conclude that it is all harmless and then proceed and buy the books for their children? Why have some reviews by Chrstians indicated that one should not support The Golden Compass so as to prevent it or the resulting sequels and original books from becoming a more widespread cultural phenomenon out of concern that it may harm Christianity?
BTW, the Catholic League had declared that The Golden Compass did not do well and that it looked as though no sequels would be made. Apparently, they were wrong. Due to strong international success, it seems likely that sequels will be made. This is a victory for lovers of good literature — even the radical Albert Mohler recognizes it as good writing — and also a victory for those who cherish a society where no one is pressured into silence and where no artist — whether it be an author, director, or the business machinery that accompanies their works — is pressured into changing their craft due to the bullying antics (such as The Catholic League and its long history of boycotts) of the few or even as it may be of the many.
“In other words, pretend that words don’t mean what they mean.”
This is a victory for lovers of good literature
Yeah, no. Art is not propaganda. Pullman’s books are just a puerile attempt to lash out against Tolkien’s LOTR and Lewis’ Narnia. He didn’t write them for fun. He wrote them to attack the faith of the children who read them. Art comes from the soul, not the pen. (Though I can’t blame an atheist for having to resort to the second.) 😉
That may depend on the definition of “lie.” I think one can be more than fair to Pullman and still very reasonably conclude that he is being deliberately deceptive.
It might also be noted that, since effectiveness in lying and deception in the pursuit of one’s goals is largely seen as an advantageous and enviable skill in His Dark Materials, and a talent for which Lyra herself is lauded, I don’t think he or anyone else ought to be outraged at such an assessment.
Not having a window into the “average practicing Christian”‘s mind, I’m not sure I can dispute this. Many Christians do hate atheism, and some even hate atheists, alas. I certainly deplore atheism, although I don’t know if I have the emotional energy invested in it suggested by the word “hatred.”
Certainly Pullman’s opposition to Christianity is not without nuance; he has called himself “a Church of England atheist,” and, unlike the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins, Pullman seems at least capable of giving some credit to historical Christianity its positive effects in history as well as blaming it for its negative effects.
Still and all, Pullman’s mindset seems profoundly anti-God as well as anti-church, and as such is deeply poisonous to the true good of man.
This seems to be a red herring.
Suppose we were to say instead, “If racial equality’s hold on the mind is based on something so fragile as to be disturbed by a work of fiction, then one wonders why one would believe in such a thing on such a basis in the first place.”
But in fact we do oppose racism in fiction, and rightly. To pick a famous example, The Birth of a Nation was a work of fiction that essentially launched the yokel hate group we know today as the KKK (as distinct from the defunct white-supremacist, upper-class, Reconstruction-era secret society shamefully celebrated in the film).
True, such caution may go overboard, as happened with excessive hang-wringing over The Passion of the Christ and what some felt were its antisemitic tendencies. But the reason I think they went overboard was because I think The Passion of the Christ, while not unproblematic in certain ways, was certainly not the antisemitic screed some made it out to be. I would never object in principle to opposition to a film based on such concerns by saying “If the evil of antisemitism has such a fragile hold on the mind as to be disturbed by a work of fiction, then one wonders why one would believe in such a thing on such a basis in the first place.”
However robust and essential a truth may be in itself, and however problematic its denial, there will always be those vulnerable to being swayed. This is particularly the case for those at a formative time in their lives, like many of the young readers of His Dark Materials.
There is some truth to this. I do think that His Dark Materials suffers as art because of Pullman’s agenda. Pullman himself candidly admitted as much when he acknowledged that the iron-clad moral color-coding of everyone aligned with the Magisterium as evil and everyone opposed to it as good was probably a “failure of art” on his part (I believe that’s the phrase he used).
However, there is some notable literary art in His Dark Materials, particularly, I think, in the earlier volumes. Pullman is a gifted writer, not simply a hack with an agenda. It would be wrong to dismiss His Dark Materials as pure propaganda. I highly recommend literary critic Alan Jacobs on this subject.
SDG,
In the matter of racial animosity, that is something that arises out of passion. In the matter of religious truth, if it is justifiably believed in at all, it is so to the extent that it arises out of reason, not passion. That’s the difference between your example and this case.
I thought I recalled reading a positive review of The Birth of a Nation on your website, but perhaps I am remembering a review from another website.
I have not seen The Birth of a Nation but I can say that with regard to the Passion of the Christ (which I also have not seen, but I am more familiar with), that the concerns raised by Jews was not that the film gave a reasoned case for animosity towards Jews, but rather that the film might incite passions of animosity. No one says that of The Golden Compass. What people fear with regards to The Golden Compass and its franchise is that it inspires the audience or the reader to think, to question. It raises questions, questions that the fundamentalist Christian community would rather not have raised — not in the minds of adults nor especially in the minds of the young. But if Christianity had a solid apologetics, any questions raised could be answered by the same parents who may be concerned or by those professionals who could help such parents. Your comment about “formative time” makes me think that Christian belief once instilled in that time is hard to remove. It seems that during that “formative time” Christians are motivated to shelter their children from opposing points of view, so as to indoctrinate — or if you prefer, instill — Christianity into them in a manner such that they would be unlikely to be shaken from it later in their lives. This does a disservice it seems to me and is in effect holding their minds hostage. Children, especially in their “formative” years should be encouraged to doubt, question, and explore new and different ideas. That is what they are taught to do in science class. Why should it be any different when it comes to truth-claims that religions make?
Thanks for noticing! My review is actually quite mixed, with strong moral reservations (a minus-3 rating out of a possible plus-4 / minus-4) but four stars for artistic achievement. Overall I give the film a “B-plus” recommendability rating for viewers today. I deplore the sociological effects that The Birth of a Nation had in the past (and the ongoing consequences today), but for modern audiences a 90-year-old silent Civil War film is highly unlikely to be any sort of occasion of the sin of racism, and can legitimately be viewed, and critiqued, and appreciated for its artistic and technical significance, in its historical context.
Anyway, the reality is messier than you suggest. To begin with, racism need not “arise out of passion.” Racism actually covers a wide range of possible phenomena, some passionate and akin to tribalism and xenophobia, others intellectual and akin to taxonomic and evolutionary theory. Griffith was a racist, but of a paternalistic and affectionate sort (as noted in my review, “he once said he could no more be against blacks than against children, and expressly compared his affection for blacks to love for children”). The KKK was and is virulently hateful, of course, but doubtless The Birth of a Nation also reinforced many viewers in a type of non-passionate racism akin to Griffith’s.
Second, religious commitment, like other forms of commitment from marital commitment to family ties to patriotism, is not simply intellectual, but also volitional and passionate. We don’t merely hold intellectual opinions about God, any more than we merely hold opinions about our spouse or our siblings. Equally, a believer can no more disinterestedly regard slurs against God in a story than you could endure a man telling stories about your mother’s secret life as a whore. Not only is the story offensive to you, for some hearers the impression created by the story could stick in their imaginations and color their actual perceptions of your mother.
His Dark Materials does not offer a reasoned rebuttal of theistic or Christian apologetics. It offers an imaginative embodiment of a worldview, a mythic picture of a potential construal of reality that many would find (at least in part) repellent, but which others may variously find troubling, intriguing, credible. Through Pullman’s books, atheism may colonize the imaginations of some readers, just as the imaginations of many readers of Lewis and Tolkien have been colonized by Christian ideas. As a Christian, I naturally see the latter as a beneficial thing and the former as a harmful thing.
You seem to me to talk as if human beings were philosopher-kings or Vulcans whose every decision and state of mind is always and everywhere determined absolutely by and perfectly attuned to the evidence and the evidence alone. I believe in evidence, but let’s not forget the old saw about the winning lawyer being the one who tells the best story.
I have no doubt that in the end it is the Christians who have, far and away, the best story to tell, really and truly the greatest story ever told (and as a humanist I regard this itself as having evidentiary value). That doesn’t mean a competing story won’t sway some jurors. If Christianity is true, that would be unfortunate for those jurors, and even more unfortunate for the lawyer telling the competing story.
At what point in their “formative” years would you recommend “encouraging children to doubt, question, and explore new and different ideas” about bullying, say? How about respect for parental guidance, or for the law? Recreational drugs? Pornography? “Unsafe sex”? Sex with grown-ups? Joining gangs? Suicide?
My impression so far is that you and I have radically contrary notions of the meaning and nature of pedagogy, possibly contrary notions of what it means to be human.
At the moment, it’s not clear to me that your idea of pedagogy amounts to much more than getting the grown-ups out of the way as expeditiously as possible and leaving children as free as possible to figure out on their own who they are, what sort of world they live in and what they want to do in it.
My idea is that we are social creatures who equip our young as best we can to live in the world as we understand it to be. Such equipping does ideally include the capacity for creative engagement with other points of view, and the capacity for critical self-evaluation and adjustments in or potential changes of worldview. It does not entail not seeking to instill children with a worldview in the first place, or not seeking to combat what we see as pernicious contrary worldviews.
Trial and error is how true science works. Trial and error is not how everything at its best works. It’s not the best way to explore marriage and fidelity, for instance.
Anyway, even in science class children aren’t really “encouraged children to doubt, question, and explore new and different ideas.” For instance, I don’t remember being encouraged to doubt evolutionary science or explore different ideas about the origins of life. (I say that as one who accepts evolutionary science, BTW.)
SDG,
. It would be wrong to dismiss His Dark Materials as pure propaganda.
Perhaps I should have been more nuanced in my comments. Though I didn’t say Pullman was untalented. I said that the books were propaganda. I’ll certainly concede that Pullman has talent, and that some of it peaks through here and there in spite of the propaganda in His Dark Materials.
However, if I had to decide between placing the books in the ‘propaganda’ or ‘art’ section of world literature, I’d come drop it in the former. Whatever the art of the book, it is poisoned by the agenda.
CT,
Are you a parent who is actually practicing what you are preaching? Or do you just feel you know better without any experience of raising children?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
CT-
“Children, especially in their “formative” years should be encouraged to doubt, question, and explore new and different ideas.”
Children don’t have to be taught these things. Not in my experience. My duty is to expose them to the truth as deeply and as often as possible. Of course if one doesn’t believe there is any such thing as Truth, then “doubt” may be the best you can do. Awfully anemic, though. There is no special merit in doubt.
A few of our philosophers cultivated such an exquisite posture of doubt that they doubted their own existence. I look at the situation differently; I’m pretty certain they existed, I just wish there had existed around them some individuals who might have knocked some sense into them. One year as a farmhand and they would have forgotten all that nonsense.
One can doubt anything, and continue doubting in the face of any kind or amount of evidence. It takes no special courage or intelligence to doubt. Doubt is not a virtue. Doubt does not equal “reason”. Doubt is not the same, even, as the reasonable suspension of belief. Doubt is often bias masquerading as reason.
You say you don’t have the kind or amount of evidence that you would need to believe in God. Fine. What strikes me as odd is that you seem personally affronted at the idea that I DO have enough evidence.
I could be wrong, of course. I *could* be a head in a jar. I’ll just say this. If, given what I know, the Christian story can’t be believed, then I don’t know that I can believe anything except what my senses bring to me moment by moment. Reasonably confirming anything that I have not personally experienced, though, begins to look impossible. There is only me in my little sensory bubble until I die.
You say that miracles don’t happen, yet you dismiss out of hand the witness of anyone to whom they may have happened. You say miracles CAN’T happen, yet all your evidence for that presupposes the conclusion.
Here’s one miracle, for you… Why should the universe bother to exist at all? Never mind the Resurrection, explain the Big Bang. Not its effects, its causes. Where did it all come from, and why?
Oh, and as an addendum, how is it you can be so certain that we can’t be certain of anything?
How can it be absolutely true that there is no Absolute Truth>
Tim, I’m not sure what you mean by “miracle” nor what you mean by “Absolute Truth.” If by “miracle” you mean only something out of the ordinary, then sure they can happen and do happen. If by “miracle” you mean something brought about by god, then I don’t see how on your view of God not everything is a miracle since everything is brought about by god. If by “miracle” you mean something brought about by god that is out of the ordinary, then you can’t use evidence that it is out of the ordinary as evidence that it is brought about by god. You have to come up with evidence that it is something that could only be brought about by god. As for Absolute Truth — do you mean God? And as for “absolutely true” do you mean merely “true without a doubt”? If so, I don’t see how those two concepts inter-relate in your question. As for your question as to how I can be so certain that we can’t be certain of anything — I don’t claim that I am certain that we can’t be certain of anything. In fact, I am certain of a number of things. For example, when I feel pain, I am certain that the experience of pain exists. Could you name the philosophers — especially any contemporary ones — that doubted their own existence? One can be certain that the experience of pain exists without being certain as to the ontological constitution of the object referred to by the definite description “I” — IOW, one need not know what one exactly is to know that one experiences pain — or pleasure or the subjective content of sensory experience (as opposed to whether they correspond to an exteriorized reality).
Consider this. To the extent to which an alleged miracle is so extraordinary and extraordinary in such a way as to lead credence to the view that it could only have been brought about by god, is to the extent to which an extraordinary level of evidence is required to reasonably believe that the alleged miracle did in fact occur. To put it less accurately, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” And you cannot say that the miracles of the Bible have extraordinary evidence attesting to them, extraordinary enough evidence to countervail the extraordinary skepticism that is to be given such extraordinary claims. If someone told you for example that the sun had turned green, you wouldn’t believe it and rightly so even if 10 of your friends told you the same. You would think that they were playing a joke on you. And even if they gave you what looked to be a photocopy of the front page of this morning’s New York Times proclaiming the story, you would think that some Photoshopping was responsible. Only if you could without a doubt verify that it was being reported by the media and then even since the media occasionally itself falls victim to hoaxes, only if you yourself could look in the sky and see the green sun, would you believe that the sun had turned green — for at this point it would be more reasonable to believe in such an extraordinary proposition than it would be to believe in an even *more* extraordinary proposition (such as that you are on some kind of Truman Show). Does not believing in Biblical miracles entail beliefs that are more extraordinary than belief in the miracles? No and I have never heard anyone even claiming as much.
PS. As for the universe existing — I posted a comment in another comment thread linking to material which talks about how man may one day have the power to create a universe, or even many universes. If this science ever moved from theory to fact, then that would show that our universe may itself have been created in like manner and that the claim it must have been created by god is false. It would also show that man is more powerful than the creator-god portrayed in the first couple books of Genesis, making one wonder what right of worship that being, so portrayed, has, even if he should exist.
If this science ever moved from theory to fact, then that would show that our universe may itself have been created in like manner and that the claim it must have been created by god is false.
Since when does possible mean actual? It would not disprove God, because Man cannot create something out of nothing. It could only throw the question of the ultimate origin of the life of a planet further back, somewhat like a family tree. Who is the Father?
This whole thing puts into my mind the The Hound of Heaven by Francis Thompson. It is interesting reading. I recommend it to all who haven’t read it.
“I posted a comment in another comment thread linking to material which talks about how man may one day have the power to create a universe”
I’m not holding my breath.
“If this science ever moved from theory to fact, then that would show that our universe may itself have been created in like manner”
The amount of faith you place in this highly speculative science is very interesting, especially given how unlikelty the whole thing is.
“…and that the claim it must have been created by god is false.”
I never claimed that the universe MUST have been created by God. I just want to know how you explain where it all came from.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
I find all the alternate explanations of the universe to be extraordinarily implausible.
As to the sun turning green, by your reasoning, a blind man would categorically never have enough evidence to believe it, even if it were true. He might, in fact, find the whole idea of the warmth on his cheek being due to a of a big ball of fire millions of miles away to be somewhat laughable.
I hope you don’t blame me if I believe it, even if he may not.
“It would not disprove God, because Man cannot create something out of nothing. It could only throw the question of the ultimate origin of the life of a planet further back, somewhat like a family tree. Who is the Father?”
This is not about creating a planet. Please refer to the links I mentioned which I’ll post here again for your convenience:
http://utilitarian-essays.com/lab-universes.html
“There is a non-trivial probability that humans or their descendants will create infinitely many new universes in a laboratory.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2100715
“It doesn’t take all that much to create a universe. Resources on a cosmic scale are not required.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6545246
“One day, it may be possible for a person to create a universe!”
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19125591.500-create-your-own-universe.html
“They have discovered how to use a particle accelerator to create a whole new universe.”
There is no need for this universe to have been created out of nothing since this universe may have been created from within another just as we may one day be able to create many new universes from within this one. There is also no reason to suppose that the process of creation had to have been initiated from a single point. It may extend causally backward without limit just as it may extend causally forward without limit. And even if it doesn’t extend causally backward without limit and there is an initial universe — there’s no reason to suppose that this initial universe had a beginning in time. Just because our universe may have had a beginning, does not mean that the same would be the case for the initial universe — and again there’s no reason to suppose that there even is an initial universe.
God is simply an unnecessary hypothesis and beyond the reach of empirical data. If God were real, there would be empirical data supporting his existence — for example there would be reliable evidence that supports the efficacy of intercessory prayer … but there is none, not any that is reliable and consistent to be conquerable to the evidence set that would be needed for FDA drug-to-market approval. There’s evidence that supports a placebo effect on persons who may be aware that they are being prayed for, however. If God were real, and if God is indeed the ontological foundation of everything, then his being would permeate all other beings … it is difficult then to see how anyone would not realize that God exists. If God were real, then evils which serve no purpose such as in the centuries preceding the 20th, an innocent helpless fawn dying a cruel death by being struck by lightning in a forest where there is no man near to witness it or tell of it to others (who may otherwise be helped spiritually somehow by the display of divine wrath) — an event that would once in a blue moon undoubtedly have happened but which God could have prevented from happening without our even being aware that he prevented it — such an event would never have occurred as an all-good God would have prevented it. Yet does anyone seriously believe that preceding the 20th, in all prior centuries, no such events occurred? (I qualify it with “preceding the 20th…” since one could argue that in the 20th century with modern forensics God’s preventing these events would entail our knowledge that such events are surprisingly absent) I don’t know if I’ve explained this case clearly, but this is just an example of not merely an evil that seemingly has no purpose but an evil which seemingly could not even possibly have a purpose.
Not believing in God and not believing in religion allows me to be free of the moral strictures of religion and instead be just guided by love. “Love and do what you will” … apparently such a simple truth must be complicated by an avalanche of rules in Catholicism … Catholicism’s moral theology texts sometimes fill not just one volume, but several and in many cases reads the way law texts read. What is right is found in your heart.
I thank you all for the conversations engaged in. Due to time constraints, I think I will retire for the indefinite future. I have been pleasantly surprised by how much more open minded some of you professed to be contrary to my expectation for “conservative” Catholics.
CT,
By proposing that this universe doesn’t constitute the entirety of the material world, and that its creation was not the beginning of the existence of a material world, you are merely asking us to broaden our conception of what the material world is. And so I ask you, where did the material world (one universe, multiverse, whatever it actually is) come from if it was not created by God? I think that Genesis gives us a very sensible answer.
As to your subsequent argument regarding the existence of evil, I’d also offer for your consideration the possibility that death is good under some circumstances. Perhaps the man struck by lightning was spared some terrible trial or tribulation — we can’t possibly know. The particular supposition I mean to challenge here is that death is always, objectively speaking, bad thing.
When we suppose that we can judge an apparent ‘act of God’ as just or unjust, we are not giving ourselves permission to believe that He is what He is. Theodicy has always been one of the most difficult philosophical issues for believers to contend with, and it seems likely to me that there is mercy for those who refuse to worship God because their conception of God is of a diety that would have to be either evil or criminally negligent. I don’t believe in the god you don’t believe in, either… and I used to not believe in Him in the same way that you don’t.
Consider that many of the great minds throughout the ages have posed numerous theodicies that satisfied them on this point; I would recommend to you that of Boethius as laid out in “On the Consolations of Philosophy” as introductory; Aquinas will do much more with some of these concepts later on. We do ourselves a service when we consider our opponents’ positions in their strongest manifestations. And to speak from experience, when I let go of my firmly held belief that I was fit to judge the things I saw in nature and amongst men as irredeemably unjust or evil, a major source of suffering in my life was turned into a source of Faith. Take care,
JRC
It may extend causally backward without limit just as it may extend causally forward without limit.
The laws of thermodynamics would seem to disagree with you.
Not believing in God and not believing in religion allows me to be free of the moral strictures of religion and instead be just guided by love.
Funny, I would say that faith in God and the reception of His grace enables me to love more freely, without any selfish expectations.
I cannot believe that men who do good and evil things do not receive some ultimate justice. Much evil has been committed by men who then escape, live in ‘peace,’ and die in their beds. Every part of me knows that justice will be satisfied. Otherwise, there is no order in the world, and no morality. Everything is then weighed by the possible and impossible, and not whether it is good or evil.
CT,
On the off-chance that you’ll drop by here again out of curiosity, I’ll throw in a couple of pennies myself.
What people fear with regards to The Golden Compass and its franchise is that it inspires the audience or the reader to think, to question. It raises questions, questions that the fundamentalist Christian community would rather not have raised — not in the minds of adults nor especially in the minds of the young.
Actually, no Christians I know of are worried that the story may raise logical questions in the minds of their children. I am afraid your anti-Christian bias is showing again, but I am more than happy to give you an opportunity “to think, to question” this prejudice of yours.
First off, let’s acknowledge the difference between a reasoned philosophical argument intended to raise points in a logical fashion, and a children’s story intended to impart values in a nonrational manner. A couple of examples:
#1: I give a well-reasoned speech explaining why I think people ought to engage in charitable giving. I explain how those who have enough to spare sacrifice relatively little compared to the gain by those who have nothing. I explain how communities that practice charitable giving have longer life expectancy, lower crime, and report a greater degree of overall happiness. I provide counterarguments against the points most often raised in opposition to charitable giving, such as issues of self-reliance and dependency.
#2: I tell a fairy tale about an old peasant who invites a vagrant in and feeds and clothes him, and gives him a bed for the night by a warm fire. In the morning the vagrant (who is actually a king in disguise) rewards the peasant with lands and a title and riches beyond his wildest dreams.
Now note that in both cases, I am promoting the same basic value of charitable generosity, but in each case I make my point in a different way. The first case is what you and I would consider a reasoned argument. The second is a nonrational method of imparting values that we would call a children’s fairy tale.
The fairy tale contains a truth and implies certain things about the way the world works, even though it is literally false. It is true that kind generosity does have immense value and that those who are charitably generous reap tremendous rewards. However, it is not factually true that earthly kings walk around disguised as vagrants and lavish rewards on those who are kind to them.
The virtue of a reasoned argument has to do with facts; the facts it presents must be true, or the argument is deceptive. The virtue of fiction is not just that it is enjoyable, but that it conveys to us certain truths about life despite the fact that the literal content of the stories are untrue. Fiction is deceptive not when it reports untrue facts, but when it conveys false “truths” about life.
Writers of fact are expected to present truth in one fashion; writers of fiction are expected to present it in another. We do not normally take issue with an historian who fails to tie together the themes in his narrative. Similarly, we do not normally take issue with a fiction writer who writes as if certain things had happened when, in fact, they did not.
Pullman’s novels (and, indeed, all fictional works by all authors) are primarily concerned with imparting truths in the second fashion. He does not make any rational arguments about God, baptism, or the instructional arm of the Catholic Church. Instead, he uses a factually inaccurate story and an imaginary institution to convey what he believes are deeper truths about the nature of their real-world counterparts.
Christians are not concerned about the rational arguments Pullman makes against Christianity; there aren’t any in His Dark Materials. And Christians are not concerned about the factual inaccuracies in the books; factual inaccuracy is a fiction writer’s stock in trade, and Pullman never claims (as Dan Brown does in the intro to The Da Vinci Code) to be presenting us with any factual truths.
In fact, Pullman does not claim to be making rational arguments. He does not claim to tackle Christian beliefs in a logical manner; instead he claims to “undermine” them, to be “saying things that are far more subversive” than Rowling.
The sole objection of Christians is that the deeper truths implied by Pullman are not, in fact, truths at all. We do not want our young children reading these books for the same reason we do not tell them fairy tales that glorify cruelty or vanity or greed. Sure, we could tell them such tales, and let them sort the truth out for themselves, but that’s not the point of a fairy tale. A fairy tale is told to instill a value- a prejudice, if you will- in a way that does not engage a person’s rational faculties. Fairy tales are commonly regarded as being children’s tales because children’s rational faculties are not yet fully developed, and making rational arguments to them is not very fruitful.
This is why I don’t argue or reason with my two-year-old daughter about the merits of not hitting her brother or not running out in the street. When she’s older, she’ll be able to understand the reasoning behind these commands in a more abstract fashion. Until then, I just want her to develop habits and prejudices that I think will benefit her. When she’s older she can, and inevitably will, question some of these prejudices and decide for herself how she wants to live. But she will do this gradually, as her rational faculties and critical thinking skills develop and expand. I fully intend to teach her these skills to the extent that I can, but rational, abstract thought is not a capacity with which we are all born, and kids are not immediately able to critically examine the implied truths in everything they read.
Basically, we think that Pullman is selling a fairy tale with a rotten moral, and we don’t want to buy that fairy tale for our kids. It’s about being a good parent, not about being afraid to engage in abstract and logical thought.
CT,
You wrote:
Your comment about “formative time” makes me think that Christian belief once instilled in that time is hard to remove. It seems that during that “formative time” Christians are motivated to shelter their children from opposing points of view, so as to indoctrinate — or if you prefer, instill — Christianity into them in a manner such that they would be unlikely to be shaken from it later in their lives. This does a disservice it seems to me and is in effect holding their minds hostage. Children, especially in their “formative” years should be encouraged to doubt, question, and explore new and different ideas.
I suppose when you have children, you will encourage them, during their formative years, to adopt the kinds of prejudices you think will help them in life. In your case, this includes a favorable bias towards doubt and questioning and exploration.
However, I suspect this will also include your unfavorable bias against religion. I am sure you won’t mind your 7-year-old spending time at the zoo exploring truths about biology, but I bet you’d be a lot less willing to drop him off at the local Church of Scientology to explore their truths about body thetans and their auditing process. Certainly you’d feel much more comfortable letting him explore such things after he’d reached a less impressionable age?
Naturally, you would regard your own parenting methods as very open-minded. Surely sheltering your kids from wacky religious brainwashing isn’t “holding their minds hostage” is it?
CT wrote:
There is no need for this universe to have been created out of nothing since this universe may have been created from within another just as we may one day be able to create many new universes from within this one. There is also no reason to suppose that the process of creation had to have been initiated from a single point. It may extend causally backward without limit just as it may extend causally forward without limit. And even if it doesn’t extend causally backward without limit and there is an initial universe — there’s no reason to suppose that this initial universe had a beginning in time. Just because our universe may have had a beginning, does not mean that the same would be the case for the initial universe — and again there’s no reason to suppose that there even is an initial universe.
There’s no reason to suppose an initial universe at all. In fact, if the “universe” we live in was created out of another “universe” then I think you are abusing the word “universe” which properly refers to the entirety of material existence.
There is also no reason to suppose that the entirety of material existence is limitless, especially given the fact that everything we can observe has limits in time and space. We’ve never seen any evidence of limitless time, space, or matter. Is such a concept not at least as incredible as the notion that an eternal being became the primary cause of the material universe?
CT,
You wrote
Not believing in God and not believing in religion allows me to be free of the moral strictures of religion and instead be just guided by love. “Love and do what you will” … apparently such a simple truth must be complicated by an avalanche of rules in Catholicism … Catholicism’s moral theology texts sometimes fill not just one volume, but several and in many cases reads the way law texts read. What is right is found in your heart.
What is right is sometimes found in your heart, and sometimes not. What is wrong is also found in the human heart sometimes.
Go ahead and make your own way free of the moral strictures of religion. If you should discover that your own way has led not to love as you had intended, but to misery and obsession, don’t be afraid to ask God for some help. Just knock, and that door will be opened.
I thank you all for the conversations engaged in. Due to time constraints, I think I will retire for the indefinite future. I have been pleasantly surprised by how much more open minded some of you professed to be contrary to my expectation for “conservative” Catholics
It’s been a pleasure sharing discussions with you. You’ve been much less venomous and unreasonable than many atheists I’ve dealt with online.
Personally, I’d prefer to be thought of as an “orthodox” (small “o”) Catholic than a “conservative” Catholic. My blog (link through my name below) entry of March 6th should explain why.
Peace be with you, CT.
I just wanted to clarify that “innocent fawn” refers to an innocent young deer, not a man as one person seems to have taken it to be. Whether Pullman presents logical arguments or not, he does present food for thought and that was what I think I meant. May you find peace as well, SB.
Consider this. To the extent to which an alleged miracle is so extraordinary and extraordinary in such a way as to lead credence to the view that it could only have been brought about by god, is to the extent to which an extraordinary level of evidence is required to reasonably believe that the alleged miracle did in fact occur. To put it less accurately, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” And you cannot say that the miracles of the Bible have extraordinary evidence attesting to them, extraordinary enough evidence to countervail the extraordinary skepticism that is to be given such extraordinary claims
Dead bodies don’t get up and walk about. What more evidence would you need?
People born blind don’t just see. And nowadays we even know that this entailed two miracles: the physical ability to see, and the mental ability to organize sight into coherent images. Perhaps a person might spontaneously regain sight, but as babies are born unable to see, he wouldn’t really see. What more evidence would you need?