His Dark Materials vs Chronicles of Narnia
See this Snopes.com article on Phillip Pullman's The Golden Compass
I don't think the His Dark Materials series made a good case for atheism in the first place. I didn't know Phillip Pullman intended to pit himself against C.S. Lewis but while I read the books they did make me start comparing with the Chronicles of Narnia. I was dissapointed. The characters were as rich, the worlds were as imaginative, but in the end His Dark Materials simply did not resonate. Whereas Lewis' tales touched me to the quick with profound truths, Pullman's were clever but in the end left more questions than answers. Lewis tells you how the world was created, how evil came into it, how the Creator defeated the evil, and what is to come. Pullman tells you that "religion" is oppressive and cruel, and that God is a sham. If Pullman was trying provide an atheistic counterweight to Lewis' Christian worldview he did not do a good job. Here are my reasons for thinking so:
1. The religion he criticises isn't a true reflection of religion in the first place, it's his own take on religion. He set up a straw man to attack.
2. The universe he depicts seems more pantheistic than atheistic. Everything is made from "dark material", particles that are somehow conscious, and when they die they dissipate into these particles again. There is a belief system in operation. In the story there is a atheistic scientist who was formerly a Christian, however as the story unfolds she comes to accept the pantheistic worldview because she starts to interact with the dark material and learn its nature.
3. The whole story is about the battle of good against evil. If a pantheistic or atheistic worldview is being promoted, where does this concept of good and bad come from?
My personal take-away from comparing Pullman with Lewis is that an atheist cannot write children's fiction. This is not a facetious observation. Three characteristics of children's stories are that 1) they are moralistic; 2) they are imaginative, i.e. creative; and 3) their purpose is for edification in some way or other. Where does an atheist draw right and wrong from? Don't atheists deal in proven facts rather than whimsy and fantasy? What words of encouragement would a true atheist have for others that does not mean imposing his own personal "truths" on them? No, there is no atheistic children's story because children with untainted minds are nearer to the Kingdom of God and cynical atheistic thoughts wouldn't appeal to them. While Pullman's intention to introduce atheism to children is reprehensible, it is ironic that in writing something that has to appeal to children he is forced to abide by the three characteristics of children's stories and thereby forced into a realm where atheists cannot survive.
By the way, C.S. Lewis was himself an atheist who came to the conclusion that atheism did not fly. He then contemplated pantheism and Christianity, and in the end became a Christian.
posted by Jill Downhill @ 9:43 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
"1. The religion he criticises isn't a true reflection of religion in the first place, it's his own take on religion. He set up a straw man to attack."
Everything is subjective to be sure, and Pullman is choosing only to portray religion in a negative light, but then he is picking out what truly is negative about religion. Religion is not all good; there are negatives to it, and that is what Pullman chooses to focus on. Call it one-sided if you will, but it is not a straw man.
"2. The universe he depicts seems more pantheistic than atheistic. Everything is made from "dark material", particles that are somehow conscious, and when they die they dissipate into these particles again. There is a belief system in operation. In the story there is a atheistic scientist who was formerly a Christian, however as the story unfolds she comes to accept the pantheistic worldview because she starts to interact with the dark material and learn its nature."
There really isn't a "belief system" in operation. Dust is a physical concept that can be empirically studied, unlike religous concepts which require faith. Obviously Dust is not an actual concept in reality, and Pullman isn't suggesting that; what he's suggesting is to look for truths through what humans *know*, not what they believe. In this sense, Dust is entirely atheistic.
"3. The whole story is about the battle of good against evil. If a pantheistic or atheistic worldview is being promoted, where does this concept of good and bad come from?"
Humanity itself. Unlike religion, whose believers derive their morality from what scriptures tell them is right and wrong, Pullman is encouraging people to use reason, logic, feeling--utlimately, *human consciousness* to come to these determinations. Ethical theories that lack a religous component have been on the books for generations; just because God isn't the source of morality does not mean morality cannot exist. In fact, Pullman would go so far as to say the opposite: that thinking religiously, and deriving ones morals from dogmatic scriptures and faith in a higher power, is itself immoral because it requires us to simply follow another's commandments instead of using what makes us truly unique as humans, namely consciousness, to rationally construct these ideas for ourselves. He isn't even saying that all religious morals are bad (surely we know murder is wrong, regardless of religion; though he does criticize those morals of religion he feels are bad, like repressing sexuality). But what Pullman ultimately has a problem with is not the religious morals so much themsleves as much as the thought process that theists use to determine their morals: namely, dogmatically following what a postulated higher-power says for as one's moral compass in life (which really is a religious moral unto itself).
"My personal take-away from comparing Pullman with Lewis is that an atheist cannot write children's fiction. This is not a facetious observation. Three characteristics of children's stories are that 1) they are moralistic; 2) they are imaginative, i.e. creative; and 3) their purpose is for edification in some way or other."
It seems, then, that you have entirely missed the point of His Dark Materials, and it's questionable that you even read the book if you are, of all things, going to label it as "uncreative". Your views on how atheists can't be moral is understandable even if ignorant, likewise is your unfortunate belief that one cannot find edification outside of religious concepts. But what is not understandable is charging the book and its author as being "uncreative" and "unimaginative". How inhuman do you really believe atheists are?
I suggest you read the novels again, perhaps more open to being critical of at least some of the negative aspects of religion and a little less hostile to those who have an intellectual disagrement with you on the subject, before you dismiss this work entirely. Don't misunderstand though, atheists are certainly capable of this though process as well: it's sad that Pullman is so entrenched in his views and so hostile to religious concepts that he finds Narnia, which really is a beautiful story, so repulsive. Don't make his mistake.
Thank you for your comments.
I should admit I missed some of Pullman's point. I thought your explanation was very clear.
I suppose theoretically a morality could exist without God, but would it be a good one? I would say "no" and I guess an atheist would say "why not?", and I think both would point to the world around them as proof.
You misunderstand me (or I did not represent myself well) on one point. I first read His Dark Material on the recommendation of a friend and without any background on why Pullman wrote the books. I found myself naturally drawing comparison with The Chronicles of Narnia because I thought Pullman's world and characters were just as rich and imaginative as Lewis'. I thought "this is cool! A secular companion to Narnia!" I was looking forward to something powerful but in the end I was disappointed because His Dark Material just did not resonate the way Narnia did. At this point I should also admit that perhaps the books do resonate powerfully for atheists and just don't with me because I am a Christian with an opposite worldview. This does make sense given Pullman's intention which I learned about later.
What I meant by saying an atheist can't write children's books is actually that, the way I see it, the best things about His Dark Materials (the morality, the fantasy, and the truth) were when Pullman was being least atheistic. I did not mean to say that the trilogy lacked morality or creativity.
Post a Comment
<< Home