Philip Pullman Is A Liar

by Jimmy Akin on November 29, 2007

in Fiction

Philip_pullman_20050416
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?

Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

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?

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.

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.

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.

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:
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,
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.

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,
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 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?story...
"One day, it may be possible for a person to create a universe!"
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/m...
"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.

"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.

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.

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>

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?

CT,
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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Children, especially in their "formative" years should be encouraged to doubt, question, and explore new and different ideas.

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.

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?

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,
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?

CT wrote: Pullman has not lied.

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.

Pullman does not hate Christianity any more than the average practicing Christian hates atheism.

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.

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.

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.

David B. wrote: Art is not propaganda. ... Art comes from the soul, not the pen.

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.

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.) ;-)

"In other words, pretend that words don't mean what they mean."

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.

"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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Oh, David B! How gauche! Mentioning an inconvenient fact!

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.

"...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.

"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"?

As usual, you nailed it, Tim.
Ooops. I engaged in "Free-Speech-While-Catholic", didn't I?

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.".

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.

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?

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.

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...
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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sorry, that last was me.

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.

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!

It's getting the rotten tomato at Rotten Tomatoes: only 40% favorable at the moment.

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.

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.

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...

Previous post:

Next post: