Philip Pullman Is A Liar

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

[Mark]

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.

[The Thirsty Gargoyle]

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.

[Martin]

Jimmy,

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

[Tim J.]

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.

[Tim J.]

Or, as Pilate put it;

"What IS Truth?".

[Memphis Aggie]

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.

[Ed Peters]

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

[Tim J.]

"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.

[Memphis Aggie]

Tim,

That's exactly my experience too.

[Day]

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.

[bill912]

"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.

[Justin West]

"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...

[Justin West]

"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...

[Justin West]

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...

[Esau]

The Golden Compass

If anybody have seen the trailers for this movie, the anti-Christian (or more specifically, the anti-Catholic) sentiment is clearly evident.

For example, it paints a dark picture of an institution that maliciously declares heresy and said institution is actually called in the movie, "The Magesterium"!

Hmmmm... I wonder why they chose this name for this demonized institution???

Rather than be cryptic about it, they have made plain the reference here.

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

[John E]

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.

[Mary]

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.

[Memphis Aggie]

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.

[bill912]

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!"

[Memphis Aggie]

Now I see your objection bill

[David B.]

"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.

[Foxfier]

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?

[Esau]

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.

[Tim]

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).

[Mary]

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

[Memphis Aggie]

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.

[Tim J.]

If I recall, the DVC publicity machine hired people to go on the internet and encourage those who opposed the film to "see it and make up your own mind.", or to "see it in groups and discuss it afterward", or to see it the better to refute its errors.

The phrase common to all these exhortations being "see it", of course.

[David B.]

David B.,

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

Take a wild guess :-)

[Memphis Aggie]

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.

[studdunker]

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.

[TerryC]

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?

[Esau]

If I recall, the DVC publicity machine hired people to go on the internet and encourage those who opposed the film to "see it and make up your own mind.", or to "see it in groups and discuss it afterward", or to see it the better to refute its errors.

The phrase common to all these exhortations being "see it", of course.

And isn't it curious that the final version of the movie itself eventually tailored itself to explicitly refute those Catholic/Christian apologetics that were set out to defend the Faith against the movie's heretical ideas?

The version of the Robert Langdon character in the movie was specifically designed for this end.

[Elesiek]

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."

[Memphis Aggie]

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.

[Johnny Vino]

I just can't bring myself to care about this. No one's going to see this movie anyway what with "Lions and Lambs" still playing.

[Elesiek]

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.

[bill912]

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

[Foxfier]

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.

[Memphis Aggie]

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?

[John E]

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.

[Memphis Aggie]

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.

[Elesiek]

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.

[Esau]

...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!

[Memphis Aggie]

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?

[Esau]

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.

[Elesiek]

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.

[Zach Foreman]

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.

[Memphis Aggie]

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.

[bill912]

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

[Tim J.]

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?

[Zach Foreman]

Oh, and how is he trying to "destroy the basis of Christian belief"? Not by attacking Jesus Christ, but by attacking God. That is, he is attacking the very nature and existence of a Creator, which certainly qualifies as trying to destroy the basis of Christian belief, but also the basis of Islamic belief, Judaic belief, etc. In fact, pretty much every belief except atheism.
It reminds me of those Star Trek episodes (or was it movie) where a computer/alien is pretending to be God and is worshiped by a planet's inhabitants. The masquerade is revealed and the Enterprise goes home happy. Now, technically, that doesn't disprove the existence of the real God, but it certainly causes one to question whether or not our society has created God, rather than whether God created us. That is, of course, the starting point for atheism.
Think about it this way, if you *were* a militant atheist trying to convert people, what would you do differently than Pullman? Wouldn't you write a book for children which would inevitably lead them to question all religious authority including God, but in such a way as to not be obvious and would still be entertaining? It seems that the only way we can prove that Pullman is a "militant atheist" is to have him say that he is a militant atheist. But for me, if he quacks like a duck...
The funny thing is that if Donahoe had said, "Pullman is doing the Devil's work." you would have also gotten into a tizzy, but that is exactly how Pullman himself characterized his work, as described by one of the most famous Christian apologists in the past few hundred years. If CS Lewis would say that about him, why do you object that Donahoe calls him a "militant atheist"? Do you really think that that characterization would offend Pullman, personally? He explicitly states that he doesn't believe that God, as most believers conceive of him, exists (that is a personal God). He also is producing books and movies with that world-view at the center. The former qualifies him as an atheist, and the latter as militant.

[The Masked Chicken]

The renowned ">http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp"> 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

[David B.]

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.

[Elesiek]

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?

[David B.]

err, "lost"

[Esau]

No, Esau...

"I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief"
... so are many Muslims. That doesn't make them militant atheists intent on converting people to atheism.

Elesiek,

And I suppose militant Muslims are not intent on converting people to Islam!

Your own analogy contradicts you!

[The Masked Chicken]

The renowned ">http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp"> 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

[David B.]

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.

[Elesiek]

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?

[David B.]

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

[Elesiek]

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?

[bill912]

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

[Skygor]

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.

[SDG]

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.

[Kasia]

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)

[Elesiek]

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."

[David B.]

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

[Elesiek]

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.

[Kasia]

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).

[Kasia]

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).

[David B.]

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

[Warren]

With free speech in mind...
Hop on over to Amazon and or iTunes and give a review. Most parents haven't the time to do a lot of research into the myriad of options for children but may notice while slowing down shopping. He's down to 2.5 stars on iTunes! audiobooks.

W

[Foxfier]

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.....

[Esau]

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!

[bill912]

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

[SDG]

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.

[Damascus Boy]

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.

[Elesiek]

Unless, of course, Pullman intentionally chose an equivocal way of phrasing his response

Even then, there are many possibilities as to why he might have wanted to be equivocal. Perhaps he didn't feel any one view or short answer expresses the whole story, so an equivocal response in question form would then be appropriate. Perhaps the question form reflects that he wanted the public to decide for themselves.

The article goes on to quote him as saying, "Oh, it causes me to shake my head with sorrow that such nitwits could be loose in the world." This would tend to indicate that he sincerely believes Donahue is mistaken. So why accuse Pullman of being dishonest if he's expressing what he sincerely believes?

Again, you keep conveniently IGNORING MOTIVE!

I cannot ignore what I do not know. The article states, "his only agenda, he said during an interview with NEWSWEEK, is 'to get you to turn the page.'" Perhaps his motive behind asking the question was not dishonesty but more along the lines as he said, to get people to read his book, so that they may question things for themselves rather than just accept what someone else says.

Church teaching is that, "He becomes guilty of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor." And, "To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it."

For me, I find charity to be without end.

He has also said he is "trying to undermine the basis for Christianity" (not just intolerant or persecuting forms of Christianity), and that his books are about "killing God" (not just the God of Christians or the God of intolerant persecutors).

And? Will the gates of whatever prevail against your Church? Will your God fall over? He may use words like "Christianity" and "God", but as someone else pointed out, he wants to knock down strawmen.

You can't just cherry-pick the least objectionable bits of what Pullman has said and act as if they cancel out the more objectionable bits.

It's exactly because I won't cherry pick that I won't accuse him of dishonesty.

It's OK to attack Christianity and especially Catholicism but what if the 'god' in this book/movie was called "Allah" or had a character called "Muhammad"? Would our defenders of free speech support "brave", "free-thinking" Pulman then?

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

[Tim J.]

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

[Tim J.]

SDG! Been wondering where you wuz at.

[Esau]

I cannot ignore what I do not know. The article states, "his only agenda, he said during an interview with NEWSWEEK, is 'to get you to turn the page.'" Perhaps his motive behind asking the question was not dishonesty but more along the lines as he said, to get people to read his book, so that they may question things for themselves rather than just accept what someone else says.

Why do you continue to IGNORE his past statements?

In a criminal case, are you telling me that the previous statements made by a suspect should be dismissed as irrelevant?

Again, it is his past statements that go to motive!

You keep conveniently ignoring one portion of the data (substantial data, I might add) in order to draw your ever biased conclusion!

[SDG]

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.

[Elesiek]

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.

[SDG]

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.

[Nihil]

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.

[Nihil]

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?

[bill912]

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.

[Nihil]

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"?

[Elesiek]

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...'"

[SDG]

Is that like glue and rubber?

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

[Elesiek]

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.

[Elesiek]

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

Whose dictionary?

[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.

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.

[Brian Walden]

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?

[JoAnna]

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."

[Mike]

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!

[SDG]

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?

[Elesiek]

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.

[Elesiek]

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?