JIMMY AKIN.ORG: Philip Pullman Is A Liar

« New Encyclical | Main | Combox Critique »

November 29, 2007

Philip Pullman Is A Liar

(Jimmy Akin)

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?

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Fiction | Permalink

Comments

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.

Posted by: Mark | Nov 29, 2007 8:37:14 AM

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.

Posted by: The Thirsty Gargoyle | Nov 29, 2007 8:57:29 AM

Jimmy,

We need to pray for Pullman and all readers who believe that fiction is fact.

Posted by: Martin | Nov 29, 2007 9:06:10 AM

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.

Posted by: Tim J. | Nov 29, 2007 9:11:23 AM

Or, as Pilate put it;

"What IS Truth?".

Posted by: Tim J. | Nov 29, 2007 9:12:36 AM

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.

Posted by: Memphis Aggie | Nov 29, 2007 9:17:27 AM

Remind me, who was the Father of Lies, again?

Posted by: Ed Peters | Nov 29, 2007 9:29:12 AM

"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.

Posted by: Tim J. | Nov 29, 2007 9:31:19 AM

Tim,

That's exactly my experience too.

Posted by: Memphis Aggie | Nov 29, 2007 9:35:37 AM

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.

Posted by: Day | Nov 29, 2007 9:55:36 AM

"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.

Posted by: bill912 | Nov 29, 2007 10:05:04 AM

"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...

Posted by: Justin West | Nov 29, 2007 10:05:47 AM

That sums it up nicely, doesn't it...silly chemical bags...

Posted by: Justin West | Nov 29, 2007 10:06:02 AM

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...

Posted by: Justin West | Nov 29, 2007 10:08:33 AM

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.

Posted by: Esau | Nov 29, 2007 10:36:24 AM

My bad -- that should've been spelled "The Magisterium".

Posted by: | Nov 29, 2007 10:37:29 AM

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.

Posted by: John E | Nov 29, 2007 10:44:01 AM

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.

Posted by: Mary | Nov 29, 2007 10:55:53 AM

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.

Posted by: Memphis Aggie | Nov 29, 2007 10:56:33 AM

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!"

Posted by: bill912 | Nov 29, 2007 11:01:31 AM

Now I see your objection bill

Posted by: Memphis Aggie | Nov 29, 2007 11:02:40 AM

"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.

Posted by: David B. | Nov 29, 2007 11:13:44 AM

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?

Posted by: Foxfier | Nov 29, 2007 11:21:51 AM

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.

Posted by: Esau | Nov 29, 2007 11:24:15 AM

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).

Posted by: Tim | Nov 29, 2007 11:26:42 AM

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

Posted by: Mary | Nov 29, 2007 11:37:53 AM

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.

Posted by: Memphis Aggie | Nov 29, 2007 11:41:56 AM

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.

Posted by: Tim J. | Nov 29, 2007 11:43:30 AM

David B.,

It depends which church you are referring to in this regard.

Take a wild guess :-)

Posted by: David B. | Nov 29, 2007 11:46:45 AM

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.

Posted by: Memphis Aggie | Nov 29, 2007 11:49:34 AM

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.

Posted by: studdunker | Nov 29, 2007 11:51:14 AM

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?

Posted by: TerryC | Nov 29, 2007 11:54:07 AM

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.

Posted by: Esau | Nov 29, 2007 12:02:36 PM

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."

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 29, 2007 12:16:41 PM

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.

Posted by: Memphis Aggie | Nov 29, 2007 12:26:55 PM

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.

Posted by: Johnny Vino | Nov 29, 2007 12:37:16 PM

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.

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 29, 2007 12:54:35 PM

Jimmy and Memphis Aggie have met the burden of proof: "Because Pullman himself has said so", and the Pullman quotes that follow.

Posted by: bill912 | Nov 29, 2007 1:04:11 PM

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.

Posted by: Foxfier | Nov 29, 2007 1:13:28 PM

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?

Posted by: Memphis Aggie | Nov 29, 2007 1:26:52 PM

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.

Posted by: John E | Nov 29, 2007 1:34:08 PM

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.

Posted by: Memphis Aggie | Nov 29, 2007 1:54:45 PM

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.

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 29, 2007 1:55:44 PM

...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!

Posted by: Esau | Nov 29, 2007 2:00:59 PM

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?

Posted by: Memphis Aggie | Nov 29, 2007 2:09:38 PM

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.

Posted by: Esau | Nov 29, 2007 2:16:44 PM

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.

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 29, 2007 2:21:03 PM

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.

Posted by: Zach Foreman | Nov 29, 2007 2:23:29 PM

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.

Posted by: Memphis Aggie | Nov 29, 2007 2:23:52 PM

The above posts do not mean that Elesiek means anything he posted.

Posted by: bill912 | Nov 29, 2007 2:24:34 PM

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?

Posted by: Tim J. | Nov 29, 2007 2:26:33 PM

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.

Posted by: Zach Foreman | Nov 29, 2007 2:34:13 PM

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

Posted by: The Masked Chicken | Nov 29, 2007 2:47:31 PM

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.

Posted by: David B. | Nov 29, 2007 2:49:34 PM

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?

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 29, 2007 2:49:51 PM

err, "lost"

Posted by: David B. | Nov 29, 2007 2:49:59 PM

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!

Posted by: Esau | Nov 29, 2007 2:51:14 PM

The renowned Snoopes site came to pretty much the same conclusion.

The Chicken

Posted by: The Masked Chicken | Nov 29, 2007 2:52:41 PM

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.

Posted by: David B. | Nov 29, 2007 2:55:35 PM

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?

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 29, 2007 3:01:00 PM

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

Posted by: David B. | Nov 29, 2007 3:06:39 PM

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?

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 29, 2007 3:09:34 PM

Elesiek: Same troll, different handle. As the Beach Boys sang: "Dance, Dance, Dance"!

Posted by: bill912 | Nov 29, 2007 3:23:00 PM

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.

Posted by: Skygor | Nov 29, 2007 3:24:27 PM

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.

Posted by: SDG | Nov 29, 2007 3:26:31 PM

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)

Posted by: Kasia | Nov 29, 2007 3:32:45 PM

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."

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 29, 2007 3:33:19 PM

Good to read you again, Stevo! You've been gone too long, me friend.

Posted by: David B. | Nov 29, 2007 3:35:41 PM

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.

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 29, 2007 3:36:38 PM

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).

Posted by: Kasia | Nov 29, 2007 3:42:58 PM

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).

Posted by: Kasia | Nov 29, 2007 3:48:43 PM

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

Posted by: David B. | Nov 29, 2007 3:49:18 PM

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.

Posted by: Warren | Nov 29, 2007 3:57:09 PM

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.....

Posted by: Foxfier | Nov 29, 2007 3:58:59 PM

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!

Posted by: Esau | Nov 29, 2007 4:03:28 PM

Perhaps they are, in their own way, requesting our prayers.

Posted by: bill912 | Nov 29, 2007 4:05:12 PM

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."

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.

Posted by: SDG | Nov 29, 2007 4:32:30 PM

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.

Posted by: Damascus Boy | Nov 29, 2007 5:05:03 PM

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.

Does it cease to be a strawman if you change the name?

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 29, 2007 5:14:06 PM

Hey, Felicity.... er, I mean, "Elesiek"... what's the sound of one hand clapping?

Posted by: Tim J. | Nov 29, 2007 5:19:12 PM

SDG! Been wondering where you wuz at.

Posted by: Tim J. | Nov 29, 2007 5:20:17 PM

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!

Posted by: Esau | Nov 29, 2007 5:24:28 PM

B (The Troll): For me, I find charity to be without end.

As always, B, I cannot hear what you say for the thunder of what you are.

Tim J: SDG! Been wondering where you wuz at.

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.

Posted by: SDG | Nov 29, 2007 5:57:53 PM

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.

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 29, 2007 6:30:43 PM

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.

Posted by: SDG | Nov 29, 2007 6:48:59 PM

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.

Posted by: Nihil | Nov 29, 2007 6:52:50 PM

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?

Posted by: Nihil | Nov 29, 2007 6:54:50 PM

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.

Posted by: bill912 | Nov 29, 2007 6:59:34 PM

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"?

Posted by: Nihil | Nov 29, 2007 7:28:25 PM

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...'"

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 29, 2007 7:40:43 PM

Is that like glue and rubber?

The words are in the dictionary. You usually last a few more rounds before going content-free.

Posted by: SDG | Nov 29, 2007 7:46:04 PM

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.

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 29, 2007 7:50:00 PM

The words are in the dictionary. You usually last a few more rounds before going content-free.

Whose dictionary?

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 29, 2007 7:51:03 PM

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.

Posted by: Mary | Nov 29, 2007 7:54:03 PM

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?

Posted by: Brian Walden | Nov 29, 2007 7:54:15 PM

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?".

And you need to look at Pullman's quote about Donahue in its full context.

"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?"

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."

Posted by: JoAnna | Nov 29, 2007 7:54:54 PM

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!

Posted by: Mike | Nov 29, 2007 8:32:17 PM

Whose dictionary?

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?

Posted by: SDG | Nov 29, 2007 8:33:59 PM

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.

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 29, 2007 8:34:42 PM

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?

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 29, 2007 8:47:20 PM

"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.

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."

And if Pullman is more properly agnostic than atheist

Bzzt! Pullman calls himself an atheist. If you want documentation, I can provide it.

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?

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.

Posted by: SDG | Nov 29, 2007 8:56:33 PM

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.

Posted by: Jason | Nov 29, 2007 9:00:11 PM

(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).

Posted by: Jason | Nov 29, 2007 9:02:56 PM

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.

Posted by: Brian Walden | Nov 29, 2007 9:10:37 PM

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.

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 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.

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.

Posted by: SDG | Nov 29, 2007 9:11:22 PM

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.

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.

Posted by: Jason | Nov 29, 2007 9:28:01 PM

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.

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 29, 2007 10:51:25 PM

religion.

a middleman which stands between me and something i seek.

and wants a commission for getting in my way.

Posted by: oobi | Nov 30, 2007 12:03:13 AM

two rednecks: "Hey buddy, we're Christians and we don't like what you said!"

Bill Hicks: "Then, forgive me."

Posted by: oobi | Nov 30, 2007 12:06:36 AM

Wow! Another intellectual giant! I'm so in awe!

Next time, get your mommy's permission before using her computer.

Posted by: bill912 | Nov 30, 2007 3:51:47 AM

Jason: 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.

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.

B: 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."

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.)

B: No, I don't laugh at Donohue. He's passionate about his beliefs. So is Pullman. Each in his own way.

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.

Posted by: SDG | Nov 30, 2007 5:30:28 AM

Don't feed the trolls.

Posted by: Scott W. | Nov 30, 2007 5:50:33 AM

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.

Posted by: Memphis Aggie | Nov 30, 2007 5:52:15 AM

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

Posted by: Mary | Nov 30, 2007 6:23:42 AM

let us say that it is not quite as flattering as you may think

Posted by: Mary | Nov 30, 2007 6:31:47 AM

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.

Posted by: Jamie Beu | Nov 30, 2007 8:07:57 AM

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

Posted by: Yeoman | Nov 30, 2007 8:10:07 AM

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!).

Posted by: Jamie Beu | Nov 30, 2007 8:21:10 AM

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!

Posted by: Esau | Nov 30, 2007 9:25:36 AM

"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?

Posted by: Michael | Nov 30, 2007 9:37:53 AM

"He's not quite dead."

Posted by: bill912 | Nov 30, 2007 9:49:08 AM

Good thing, bill, I don't think I can reach his pockets.

Posted by: Foxfier | Nov 30, 2007 9:55:38 AM

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!

Posted by: Esau | Nov 30, 2007 9:57:39 AM

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.

Posted by: Memphis Aggie | Nov 30, 2007 10:06:54 AM

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!

Posted by: Esau | Nov 30, 2007 10:23:26 AM

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.

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 30, 2007 11:21:37 AM

I'm sure His Dark Materials has nothing to do with Atheism as Animal Farm has nothing to do with Communism!

Posted by: Esau | Nov 30, 2007 11:43:15 AM

Posted by: | Nov 30, 2007 11:43:40 AM

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.

Posted by: David B. | Nov 30, 2007 12:06:37 PM

"sacrificed"

Posted by: David B. | Nov 30, 2007 12:07:12 PM

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:

Posted by: Scott W. | Nov 30, 2007 12:51:07 PM

"Clickable link:"

or not. sorry.

Posted by: Scott W. | Nov 30, 2007 12:52:36 PM

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?!

EXCERPT:

But at least one liberal scholar has called the trilogy a “theological masterpiece,” and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rates the film “intelligent and well-crafted entertainment.”

*VOMIT*

LINK:
‘Golden Compass’ raises religious debate

Posted by: Esau | Nov 30, 2007 3:05:17 PM

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.

Posted by: Antonia | Nov 30, 2007 3:18:05 PM

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.

Posted by: Nihil | Nov 30, 2007 4:54:52 PM

Huh, seems someone left a tag open. Fixed.

Posted by: Nihil | Nov 30, 2007 4:56:21 PM

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.

Posted by: Zach Foreman | Nov 30, 2007 6:29:08 PM

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.

Posted by: David B. | Nov 30, 2007 7:02:48 PM

Thanks, David B..

Someone had to do that.

Posted by: Tim J. | Nov 30, 2007 7:07:18 PM

Always ready and willing, Tim J.

Posted by: David B. | Nov 30, 2007 7:10:19 PM

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.

Posted by: Nihil | Nov 30, 2007 7:43:14 PM

Well, Nihil, I'll stake you one USSR, one Communist China, one Vietnam, and one North Korea.

What vegetarian regimes will you raise me?

Posted by: Mary | Nov 30, 2007 7:47:26 PM

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?

Posted by: Nihil | Nov 30, 2007 8:34:08 PM

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.

Who's scruffy-looking? I must have hit pretty close to the mark to getcha all riled up like that, huh, kid?

Posted by: SDG | Nov 30, 2007 8:36:00 PM

Makes you wonder whether it's appropriate to consider atheism the defining characteristic of those regimes, doesn't it?

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.

Posted by: SDG | Nov 30, 2007 8:57:39 PM

I readily admit that I have not read through all the comments, just felt like saying that this:

may be the best single sentence I've read in 2007. Okay, so I don't get around much...

Posted by: tassitus | Nov 30, 2007 9:42:50 PM

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 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.

Posted by: Jason | Nov 30, 2007 9:50:22 PM

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.

Posted by: Elesiek | Nov 30, 2007 10:03:39 PM

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 be

JIMMY AKIN.ORG

Jimmy Akin's Blog

About

JA.O Bloggers

PermaPosts

Sites

Blogs

Categories

November 29, 2007

Philip Pullman Is A Liar

Comments