The Golden Compass and, You Guessed It, Atheists

I find myself in the odd position of defending atheism these days. For the record, I'm not an atheist. I simply don't know, and quite frankly, don't care about the God question these days. I do think that atheism is as reasonable, maybe more so, than theism. Still, I have experiences in my life that I've yet to categorize, so until I'm satisfied that there is a physiological or psychological explanation, I'll leave the question open.

The Golden Compass opens this weekend. I read the series several years ago; I was an evangelical at the time, possibly a bit of a fundy. I remember reading the passage wherein God dies and being a little angry. However, I also remember thinking that this was one of the most brilliant examples of children's literature I'd ever read. It far surpasses Narnia in complexity, character development, story, plot, originality, and almost every other aspect of what makes a book (trilogy, in this case) literature. The concept of a daemon (sort of like a soul) as external to and opposite in gender from the human, as well as its nature as an animal that reflects the personality of the human was, I thought at the time, one of the most original constructs in kids' lit in generations.

I read recently that Philip Pullman, the author, was taking criticism for allowing the atheist angle to be watered down so as to make the movie more appealing to the mainstream. I haven't seen it yet, so I don't know if it's true. I would be sad if that angle is minimized. Not because I'm an atheist (see above), but because the story is dependent upon that particular philosophy. The tension in the story is created by a group who is separating children from their daemons. This leads to the destruction of what it is to be human in the children. The group is a very thin allegory of the Church. The point Pullman is making should be obvious at this point. So, is that unfair?

Just this week, our hometown paper, the Daily Oklahoman, ran a cover story about the religious questions surrounding the movie. For some reason, Carla Hinton, the religion editor and author of the piece, used William Donohue from the Catholic League to speak on behalf of Catholics. If you've read Donohue's press releases in the past, you'll know that there is almost nothing he is actually for; he seems to be against an exhaustive list of human frailty, vice, and fun. Predictably, he's called for Catholics to boycott the movie. Not to be outdone, the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma dedicated an entire session at their recent annual conference to addressing the movie and trilogy. Predictably, they don't like it. Seems Baptists and Catholics can agree that atheism is not something their kids need to read about. So, now for the irony...again.

The entire point of Pullman's series is that the Church uses a construct called God to control behavior, and in doing so, robs us humans of our humanity and freedom. How does the Church respond to this? By insisting that we keep our kids away from this movie. It's called atheist propaganda—I guess that makes Narnia Christian propaganda. It's subversive, meant to rob our children of their faith. The Church in turn will rob them of their ability to think critically and consider all questions that touch on belief. Atheists shouldn't be proselytizing children. The Church will continue to offer VBS, backpack give-aways, free pizza, game platforms, bad music, and easy answers to difficult questions, because, I suppose, when you're right, it's okay that you're the proselytizer? I don't use this word much, but this is rank hypocrisy. If you can evangelize kids, then atheists can do the same damn thing, so quit crying about it. Read the books. Read 'em to your kids. Talk about the ways Pullman is right—don't act like he's not, because he's dead on when it comes to the ways churches control the minds of young people, using fear, intimidation, hell, judgment, faulty apologetics, guilt, and rewards for conformity.

Comments

[cheek]

I really wish I could find a way to anti-boycott the film, but apart from buying a thousand tickets myself, I don't know of any. I guess I could do like the fascists...I mean Christians will no doubt do and stand outside the theater trying to convince people to see it. It's going to be pretty cold though. Oh, and those people give me the creeps.

[Chris]

Sheesh. It's not fascism to discourage people to see a movie, or to organize a boycott of a movie, or to speak out against a movie (or books).

Other than that, I already have tired head from the back and forth on this thing between the churches and Pullman. No way to test this, but I would bet this film wouldn't have made as much money w/o the controversy.

[greg]

chris,

The initial reviews on this movie have been excellent. I suspect it would have been a blockbuster either way. Combine that with the fact that it's one of the most original ideas ever put to paper, and you have the makings of a genuine cinematic event.

[emergentninja]

I think we should "buy out" entire showings like they did for the Passion movies, and invite all our neighbors. Afterwards, we can have an alter call in the theater and see if anyone wants to come and acknowledge their "inner leopard."

[cheek]

You're technically right, of course, since fascism is a system of government, but this type of boycott is the equivalent in the marketplace of ideas. It's an attempt to suppress certain ideas not by demonstrating the superiority of their competitors but by ensuring that they are never heard. The Nazis didn't burn books to stay warm. Plus, my guess is that more than 9 of 10 boycotters will never have read either the books themselves or a review by an impartial third party. They are trying to win the debate through ignorance, force and intimidation. These are many of the same people who object to the striking down of sodomy laws and the removal of religious dogma from public schools. You can't seriously argue that they favor a free society.

[Bullet]

Cheek,

you said...

"... not by demonstrating the superiority of their competitors..."

The problem is that Christianity is not alowed to show itself superior. We are laughed at and told that since we can't PROVE God, creation, etc... that we just need to be quite or just go feed poor people.

My question is, what has atheism ever done? Are they know for their charity? Do they have something comprable to the Salvation Army or Feed the Children?

The reason we don't like atheistic propaganda is because we believe that those who die outside of a relationship with Jesus go to hell. I know you may not believe that, but assuming we really do, do you not think that encouraging people to avoid that vein of thinking would be the right thing to do? I know that all the huff over the movie will probably just make more people go see it, but doesn't the Church have the right to say "We want parents to know that children are easily swayed by the big Hollywood production and this is a subtle attempt to get across a message that is patently un-Biblical.

We warn people about the danger of drugs, promiscuity, weapons and the like. We can also do it for dangerous philosophy (atheism) as well.

Atheism is dangerous (not to mention completely irrational taken the overwhelming evidence of order and design in our world/galaxy/universe). We would laugh at any other set of beliefs that ignored such obvious evidence except for the fact that this set of beliefs gets us off the hook where moral standards are concerned at that trumps any other amount of evidence.

I'm not calling for a boycott, but I like the fact that we're making clear that this isn't just another nice fantasy movie for kids. It's written and conceived by a millitant atheist who hates religion and everything it stands for. I'm not saying everything religious is always wonderful, but the good that true believers in Jesus have done and continue to do are far more beneficial to society (not only in eternity, but now) than any other philosophy in the history of humanity.

That being said, we've earned the right to set the record straight on other harmful and irrational systems.

[Joe]

I can see how the Christian Right can get so anal about boycotting this movie. But you are right about the book making a true statement in how the church tries to control its members. This is nothing new based on history since the papacy was established.

They way I see is that there is an opportunity for churches to see their mistakes. But this is normal in the church. Someone critics, we expel and silence them. While you can't literally "kill" God, I do think some churches need to acknowledge their part in "killing" God.

[Joe]

Bullet,

Just to let you know, Augustine was highly influenced on Philosophy. Our ideas of atonement are influenced by philosophy. And philosophy is influenced by Christ.

[Leighton]

Let me start by saying that overall, on balance, I like the books a lot and recommend them to people who like the fantasy genre.

But I really felt betrayed by Amber Spyglass. I managed to go two and a half whole books thinking this was a story set safely in an alternate multiverse, where gods and demons and angels aren't immortal, just very long-lived; and that it was an exploration of how systems of religious domination, indistinguishable from the ones we have, can arise in universes where all sorts of different things are true, because coercive religion is more about people and power structures than any truth claims it makes. It was great, and I was really enjoying it.

But then there was that one chapter toward the end of Amber Spyglass (if you've read it, you know which I mean, and if you haven't, I won't spoil you) where he goes out of his way to say "Hey, look, this is our world, not a fantasy! See how it's our world? Look! Look at it being our world and not a hypothetical world I made up!" Man, that pissed me off. I like Narnia less and less as I get older because the allegory is just too heavy-handed, and I think the last parts of Amber Spyglass are even more blatant than anything Lewis ever did.

But I don't think that necessarily counts against the things he got amazingly, spectacularly right. The secular harrowing of hell would be worth the entire series, even if he'd had four or five crappy, reader-bludgeoning chapters later on. So I recommend it, but it's the kind of thing where I have to say "I like it, but..."

[cheek]

What do you mean "Christianity is not alowed to show itself superior?" You're allowed to. There's no law that saws you can't stand up in the market place of ideas and say whatever you want about God and Jesus and heaven and hell. Now I don't think you're capable of showing me that your version of Christianity is superior, but that's just because I think that your version is somewhere between silly and horrifying on the spectrum of rational belief. That doesn't, however, stop me from listening to your arguments or reading fiction written by people who believe what you believe. I just finished reading "Cry, the Beloved Country." (Leighton, what's the html for getting the italics to stop?) I thought it was fabulous even though I likely disagree with Alan Paton about the nature of God. My problem with the reaction some Christians are having to this film is that they aren't standing up and making their argument. They're saying that theirs is the only argument anyone should ever hear. I'm not an atheist either. In fact, I call myself a Christian and try to model my life after the Man himself. That said, I found this series of books wonderful and the social critique spot on. You can't just stick your fingers in your ears and shout "Repent lest ye burn," at the passing throng. The chances are, you're wrong about some of the things you believe, just like I'm probably wrong about some of what I think. That's why it is so damned important to let every voice be heard and then weigh the merits of each.

[Leighton]

[i] begins italics and [/i] ends them, only with pointy brackets instead of square.

The same thing works for bold (substitute b for i).

[Bullet]

Cheek,

"The Man" you are referring to was Jesus, I'm assuming?

Atheism, while it is legally protected as a form of free speech, would also have been greatly admonished (technically forbidden) by "the Man" since He said that it was Truth that mattered.

We have this silly notion that kids need to be fully informed in order to make mature desicions like adults. I do not want my 8 year old to see a movie where "god" is killed. I do the best I can to protect my family from burgulars, rapists, child-molesters, bad driving habits, financial irresponsibility and spoiled food. I will also protect them (as best I can) from mental thieves, who are out to make God (and Jesus) out to be warped idiots who don't really care for humanity.

The statement... "The Church in turn will rob them of their ability to think critically and consider all questions that touch on belief," is invalid if you think that anyone of any age needs to be exposed to everything in order to "think critically." My 6 year old doesn't need to think critically right now (unless by "think critically" you mean look both ways before crossing the street and eating your vegetables). She needs to be loved and told the Truth (God and Truth are alive and well) and then as she matures, she needs to be smart enough to know that "thinking critically" about crack cocaine means never trying it in the first place (or hanging around people who do). The mind-bogglingly ignorant claim that we have to experience everything in order to think critically is absurd.

There is Truth (according to Jesus) and there is non-truth. Movies about god getting killed are like movies where child-rape is glorified. Do you really have to see it to know it's assinine and completely a waste of time?

[Dallas Tim]

Much of this comes back around to how you view the Bible. I think we are told to teach our families the Truth. Older kids might be able to dicipher a movie like the "Golden Compass" but for a parent to say they don't want their kids to see it is their choice (actually, according to Scripture we are basically told not to expose young minds to such foolishness).

I do think, though, that all the publicity will just make everyone want to see it. It might lead to good discussion about why we can trust the Bible and/or how we can address those who aren't as confident... you know like we've done here?

[dallas tim]

... that's "decipher."

[louferrigno]

Excellent thoughts dr. horton...always finding new irony in places i can't...thats why i check in often.

[greg]

Bullet,

Killing God is like child rape being glorified? WTF! Are you a Baptist?

[greg]

Tim,

Is it foolishness because it's atheist in outlook? I guess you've actually read the book, so you can comment, right? You might try reading Ecclesiastes without the emendation at the very end. The part about fearing God and keeping his commandments was added later. Seems it was a bit too atheistic in outlook before some scribe cleaned it up. If you've read the books, feel free to respond about them. If not, try reading them first.

[goz]

Tim: I don't think anybody was saying parents shouldn't be allowed to monitor and choose what they allow their kids to watch. Even an atheist might be happy with that!

The discussion is around the choice of people who call themselves followers of Christ standing outside movie theatres and trying to ban free speech by exercising their right to free speech. Which is evil and something you never see Jesus doing (he only ever admonishes people who profess to know God) and something that Cheek picked apart very effectively further up the thread.

[cheek]

Like Goz said, no one here said that it was not parents' choice whether or not to allow their child to see this or any other movie. Of course it's their choice. Of course you don't let a 6- or 8- or even 17-year-old do or see whatever he or she chooses. I wasn't talking about parents exercising discretion. I was talking about a boycott, about the mob of zealots armed with careful ignorance I'll have to swim through outside the theater. That's what makes me sick.

Comparing a film that tells a different story than the one you think is true with crack cocaine and child molestation is a dishonest rhetorical trick that I'll ignore.

Calling the artists who made this movie "mental thieves" is really uncharitable of you. Just because they don't think the same way you do doesn't make them monsters. Believe it or not, they're interested in the truth every bit as much as you are. That's why we have to let people say what they want. I'm wrong, you're wrong, everybody is freaking wrong. There has never been a human being with enough intelligence and creativity to think of the right answer to everything. We get closer when everybody gets to say what they think. It's not that hard to dismiss ideas that don't measure up. You mocked the idea of life on this planet being a result of evolutionary forces and chance. Have you ever read a contemporary statement of the arguments for evolution? If not, how can you be so sure they are off the mark? If atheism is such an outlier, then it should not be a threat to a careful mind. I'm not going to tell you how to raise your kids, but I'll warn you that eventually they will encounter other ideas. Eventually they'll have to deconstruct everything you've taught them, even if it's right and they finally decide to keep it. For a person to truly believe something, she has to work out the truth of it on her own. Otherwise there is only an unexamined assumption masquerading as conviction.
Thanks Leighton. I think I've asked you that before, and I'm not counting out the chance that I'll need to ask again in the future. So sorry and thanks in advance.

[Leighton]

Not a problem, Cheek. Ask whenever you need it.

Incidentally, anyone who's actually read the books knows that God is portrayed sympathetically, Jesus doesn't appear at all, and the real villain in the divine realm is God's self-appointed spokesman--which, after I realized it was an allegory, I assumed was a not-so-subtle allusion to the papacy. Besides the mythology, which I don't see as foundational to his point, and the reader-bludgeoning which I decline to recognize, I think the series leaves Protestants and atheists with more in common than Protestants and Catholics.

[cheek]

I agree that the direct assault of the book aims at the Roman Catholic Church, but it doesn't require a great stretch to extend that to all organized religion. The interesting thing about all this atheist talk is that the book is deeply spiritual. I haven't read any of Pullman's own words on his intent because I typically don't care what authors say about their own books after the fact, but it is a stretch to conflate this story with an atheistic thesis. Angels do exist in the story, and the killing of God thing has been way overblown since the whole point of that scene is that what dies is a little 'g' god. He's the man behind the curtain, not the creator deity he's made out to be. From my reading, the possibility of such a being is an unknown quantity. The problem, as you say, is when a group of people claims authority to speak on behalf of such a being and thereby tell everyone else what to do.

[Bullet]

Greg,

Killing God is about as edifying (according to Scriptural principles) as anything else that is foolish or wicked. To base any story around that notion is akin to the most rank heresy and wickedness mentioned anywhere else.

Dallas T,

Don't let them bait you into believeing that you have to become an addict before you can admit that drugs are a bad choice. And don't fall for the age old "But what about Ecclesiastes..." either. If we're talking about the OT, Jesus affirmed it over and over. He also warned about making light of God (I'd say a make believe story where God is killed is making light) and He and His followers warned against wasting time with such foolishness.

[greg]

Bullet,

Had you bothered to read the stories you'd know that Pullman is killing a concept of God. And, yes, I know, reading the story is just like doing drugs. Your analogies are wearying. At least try to be honest. Unless of course you actually believe what you're saying. If that's the case, we have almost no grounds for discussion.

Tim,

This is pleasant company you've been aligned with.

[Leighton]

I agree that the direct assault of the book aims at the Roman Catholic Church, but it doesn't require a great stretch to extend that to all organized religion.

Now that you put it this way, I can see that. I had been distinguishing in my mind between the literal organized power structure and decentralized, de facto hierarchies, but this may not be a distinction that holds up under scrutiny, particularly given that both structures can have the same effects on individual believers. I'll give this some more thought.

The interesting thing about all this atheist talk is that the book is deeply spiritual. I haven't read any of Pullman's own words on his intent because I typically don't care what authors say about their own books after the fact, but it is a stretch to conflate this story with an atheistic thesis.

I think it's pretty safe to say the books have an old-school atheistic agenda. In the ancient world, "atheists" were what we today would call theists, except they didn't publicly worship the gods of the state. Centuries apart, Socrates and many early Christians were executed for "atheism" in this sense, even though they obviously believed in at least one god; it's just that they didn't believe in the right gods--the gods of the people in power. By "believe in" I mean "render allegiance to the public representatives of," naturally. Making atheism an issue of actual theology and metaphysics, as opposed to politics, is a relatively recent development.

I have no problem saying I'm an atheist in the classical sense, in that I categorically reject the idea that membership in any particular religious group makes someone more fit to govern or hold public office. I'm less eager to describe myself as an atheist in the contemporary sense, not because my metaphysics are noticeably different from those held by most contemporary atheists, but because that affirmation gives no useful information about me or my principles.

[cheek]

You do know that God isn't actually killed. They don't have video footage or anything. It's a story. Make-believe. For Christ's sake, think about what you are saying. If we only ever hear "edifying" stories, then we have to ignore most of what happens in the world. Just because a story isn't full of shiny happy people holding hands doesn't mean hearing it and thinking about it can't be beneficial. This is beginning to feel like shouting at a brick wall. Mind responding to any specific arguments?

[Dallas Tim]

Greg,

Wow, now I'm even getting criticized for things other people are saying.

I can't really speak for anyone other than myself, but my original comment(s) were just that it's not surprising for a group of people who view the Bible as the Word of God to actually avoid things that demean the Truth it contains. Letting older kids/teens view a variety of ideas and then letting them decide on what/how they feel is fine with me. I just think that this movie is geared towards the much younger set and presenting the idea of killing god is a dangerous concept to introduce them to especially when so much of what we see seems so real when we are that young.

I haven't read the book, but I didn't read "Mein Kampf" either and don't need to in order to know Hitler's ideas were laughably insane (although not so laughable considering the Holocaust).

[Dallas Tim]

I won't comment anymore on this thread. I haven't read the book and didn't really have anything more than a personal observation on the idea of speaking out against the film. Sorry to have stired up the pot.

Besides, I just saw the trailer for "Speed Racer" which comes out next May.

Can't wait...

[cheek]

The funny thing is that the allegiance required of candidates in our society is solely a statement of belief. Our lazy ass electorate doesn't even care if people believe so long as they say they believe. This does open the door for classical atheists who don't have any particular sentiment for integrity. Karl Rove and Dicky Cheney are two such animals. On a personal note, if you ever decide to run for Congress or anything let me know. I'll contribute to your doomed campaign.

[greg]

Tim,

I'm just fucking with you. I don't think anyone share's Bullet's views outside Westboro Baptist Church.

[Leighton]

The funny thing is that the allegiance required of candidates in our society is solely a statement of belief. Our lazy ass electorate doesn't even care if people believe so long as they say they believe.

The outward show of faith, then as now, was always a trifling matter--dropping a pinch of incense into a brazier in front of a bust of the emperor did it for the Romans. The bigger acts of loyalty, though, are the things you don't do: you don't question the religious authorities, don't subject their beliefs or teaching to any kind of careful examination, and for the love of your life you never, ever, ever say they're not true.

This is still true to a lesser extent in America; criticizing Christianity is still considered taboo in polite society, even though it doesn't mean death anymore as it could during the Middle Ages. But our freedom of speech has created a really puzzling dynamic where, at the cultural level, there's a lot of backlash against the religious powers and principalities that often leaves individual Christians (among others) feeling hunted and harassed; yet at the same time, it's rare to find an area where you can hold office even at the city council level without being a professing Christian (or at least Jewish). This makes conversation between people of differing beliefs difficult unless you're very patient and careful.

I think the most relevant characteristics of Cheney and Rove are that they're sociopaths--physiologically incapable of empathy. Something like 4% of people are born without the ability to feel remorse or take pleasure in helping people. (I had to read this for a case at work--it was scary, but very eye-opening.)

A lot of religious apologists confuse atheism with sociopathy. In practice, you either have a conscience, or you don't. Saying anything you like about God or the afterlife doesn't make the knot you get in your gut when you've hurt someone go away; professing the resurrection and lovingkindness until the sun burns out doesn't give you the ability to feel what other people feel unless you have it already.

In practice, there are a lot more Christian sociopaths than atheist sociopaths, not because of any content in Christianity, but because the social structure (replete with norms against questioning those who hold leadership positions) is a godsend for people whose only source for the social stimulation they need to survive comes from manipulating the minds and emotions of others. Blaming atheism for immorality both misses the point and leaves believers vulnerable to the wolves in their own flock.

[greg]

Leighton,

Time for you to write a book about belief, epistemology, and language. I volunteer to edit for you.

[Dallas Tim]

I forgot to pass along Greg and his pals wishing everyone a merry Christmas...

Enjoy

[April]

Greg, I second your compliment to Leighton. I have never been able to articulate the sociopath/Christian relationship or why churches seem so much more dangerous to me than other groups of non-religious-based organized people. You totally hit it. Thanks.

[cheek]

Joining the lovefest, my favorite thing about what you do around here, Leighton, is your relentless adherence to factual arguments. You consistently avoid stretching reality to fit your own agenda. In short, you are the picture of rhetorical moderation.

[emergentninja]

... and i think you're dreamy.

[Leighton]

Is this my cue to mention that I'm single? >.>

Seriously, thanks, all; it's always gratifying to know that what I write is useful. Though I think you're pretty patient to brave the constant run-on sentences and the semicolons that breed like rabbits.

[Whisky Prajer]

I have to confess I have a difficult time finishing any fantasy that isn't in comic book format, or, in the case of Harry Potter, read in its entirety by an exceedingly skilled actor. For that reason alone I've been reluctant to pick up the books, but your post is the first thing I've read to persuade me otherwise. So kudos for that, Greg.

As for the film, I'm under the impression that it's quite a mess, particularly if you haven't read the books (here is the Tomato-meter, and here is one "read the books" review). I see no reason why Pullman should get a slagging for any of it. There isn't an author alive that has qualitative control over the filmed adaptations of her work. I think the best tack for Pullman to take on this issue is embodied by Madeleine L'Engle's reaction to the latest attempt to film Wrinkle. When asked if the production met her expectations, she said, "It did. I expected it to be awful, and it was."