Pullman and the Blessing of Baalam
This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 19. 2007 and is filed under Fantasy,Posts by Chris Walley.
I have been meaning to write on Philip Pullman for sometime and have decided it’s now or never. It's so hard to find anyone who has any good to say about the film of The Golden Compass that he is in danger of becoming unmentionable. It maybe unfair but there is nothing like the failure of a much-vaunted and expensive film project to lower your reputation.
Actually, what I want talk about is not Pullman’s work – a matter done to death elsewhere - but an issue that his books raise; the perils of using fantasy for atheistic propaganda. This is something profoundly relevant to all readers and writers of fantasy and I suspect we have regularly, if unsystematically, alluded to it on this site. I covered some aspects of this in my blog last week in the form of a Screwtape-like letter. But I feel the matter is so significant and so overlooked that it merits a fuller and (how shall we say?) a less ‘diabolic’ treatment. Anyway, as is well known, in the course of his trilogy Pullman pursues an atheistic agenda with an ever-more maniacal zeal until in the last volume he kills off ‘God’. This act has made him the toast of many rationalists and freethinkers. My argument is that the enthusiasm of such people is grotesquely misplaced; Pullman’s works are subtly poisonous to the views they propound. To use the language of soccer, he has scored an own goal.
To see why this we need to remember that the simplest and soundest defence against coming to believe in the Christian God is to hold a position of rigid atheistic materialism. The view of materialism/ rationalism is simple: there can be nothing beyond that which we can see and touch. There can be no supernatural, so God cannot exist. The strength of materialism is its simple, all-embracing nature: it admits of no exceptions.
Yet a moment’s consideration shows us that it is this very rigour that renders it a perilous argument. If a single exception to materialism’s iron rule be proved, then the defences are fatally undermined. Admit the existence of a single effective prayer, one genuine apparition from beyond the grave, or a solitary fulfilled prophecy and the whole materialistic edifice comes tumbling down. Allow a single slender ghost through the portals of materialism and who can exclude the awesome possibility that the Lord of Hosts will not come marching in behind? And Pullman throws the doors wide. Heedless of the logical consequences, he unleashes all the great elements of fantasy – witches, wizards and daemons – every single one a transgression of the materialist creed. ‘Of course,’ he would answer ‘I don’t believe in these things, I merely use them as literary devices.’ Yet surely every time he invokes such wonders he is, in effect, supporting the Christian claim that man cannot live by materialism alone.
Incidentally, isn’t it is obvious why he does it? A worldview limited only to that which we can see and touch is astonishingly unsatisfying. Those stern ramparts erected by materialism so imprison the soul that Pullman, (more one senses from writer's intuition than from philosopher's logic) allows his readers to venture out into the realms of fantasy. Yet he who so despises Lewis should know better; beyond the walls a Lion lurks.
This brings me to my title. In Numbers 23, Balaam is brought in as a weapon of mass destruction against God's people and ends up blessing them. And that’s the way it still goes. We who read and write fantasy should be the first to recognize that the Lord of all is capable of bringing good out of evil. I almost feel sorry for the rationalists, the whole thing is so vexing that they must suffer that most annoying of desires: the temptation to pray.
Have a blessed Christmas.
Actually, what I want talk about is not Pullman’s work – a matter done to death elsewhere - but an issue that his books raise; the perils of using fantasy for atheistic propaganda. This is something profoundly relevant to all readers and writers of fantasy and I suspect we have regularly, if unsystematically, alluded to it on this site. I covered some aspects of this in my blog last week in the form of a Screwtape-like letter. But I feel the matter is so significant and so overlooked that it merits a fuller and (how shall we say?) a less ‘diabolic’ treatment. Anyway, as is well known, in the course of his trilogy Pullman pursues an atheistic agenda with an ever-more maniacal zeal until in the last volume he kills off ‘God’. This act has made him the toast of many rationalists and freethinkers. My argument is that the enthusiasm of such people is grotesquely misplaced; Pullman’s works are subtly poisonous to the views they propound. To use the language of soccer, he has scored an own goal.
To see why this we need to remember that the simplest and soundest defence against coming to believe in the Christian God is to hold a position of rigid atheistic materialism. The view of materialism/ rationalism is simple: there can be nothing beyond that which we can see and touch. There can be no supernatural, so God cannot exist. The strength of materialism is its simple, all-embracing nature: it admits of no exceptions.
Yet a moment’s consideration shows us that it is this very rigour that renders it a perilous argument. If a single exception to materialism’s iron rule be proved, then the defences are fatally undermined. Admit the existence of a single effective prayer, one genuine apparition from beyond the grave, or a solitary fulfilled prophecy and the whole materialistic edifice comes tumbling down. Allow a single slender ghost through the portals of materialism and who can exclude the awesome possibility that the Lord of Hosts will not come marching in behind? And Pullman throws the doors wide. Heedless of the logical consequences, he unleashes all the great elements of fantasy – witches, wizards and daemons – every single one a transgression of the materialist creed. ‘Of course,’ he would answer ‘I don’t believe in these things, I merely use them as literary devices.’ Yet surely every time he invokes such wonders he is, in effect, supporting the Christian claim that man cannot live by materialism alone.
Incidentally, isn’t it is obvious why he does it? A worldview limited only to that which we can see and touch is astonishingly unsatisfying. Those stern ramparts erected by materialism so imprison the soul that Pullman, (more one senses from writer's intuition than from philosopher's logic) allows his readers to venture out into the realms of fantasy. Yet he who so despises Lewis should know better; beyond the walls a Lion lurks.
This brings me to my title. In Numbers 23, Balaam is brought in as a weapon of mass destruction against God's people and ends up blessing them. And that’s the way it still goes. We who read and write fantasy should be the first to recognize that the Lord of all is capable of bringing good out of evil. I almost feel sorry for the rationalists, the whole thing is so vexing that they must suffer that most annoying of desires: the temptation to pray.
Have a blessed Christmas.
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
| Page: 1 of 1 |
-
Wednesday, December 19. 2007
Bryan Davis wrote:
Maybe philosophers and fantasy writers will understand how Pullman's use of fantasy undermines his system of thought, but that will be lost on most readers, especially the younger set.
The intriguing story and engaging characters will take children by the hand and introduce them to a world with only evil religious authority as they whisper the beauty of autonomy.
The typical unchurched reader will give no thought to the contradictions between Pullman's point of view and his chosen devices. Yet, they will likely be affected by his craft.
Balaam was unable to curse Israel with words, but he succeeded in delivering a subtler curse. It seems clear that he told Balak (Revelation 2:14) to tempt Israel with the harlots of the land, and the Israelites' own behavior led to their downfall. (Numbers chapter 25)
What Balaam failed to do with words, he succeeded with the influences of those already corrupted.
In a similar way, I don't think churched kids will be greatly affected by Pullman's works, but they well could be influenced by the unchurched kids who have bought into materialism already, and both groups might find it more acceptable because of a cool, major-media manifestation of that philosophy.
Reply to this -
Friday, December 21. 2007
david ellis wrote:
Let me preface this by admitting I haven't read Pullman's books or seen the movie. I'm responding only to what I see as flaws in your overall views about atheism and fantasy. Not in your understanding of Pullman's work since, obviously, as someone who hasn't read him, I can't.
A worldview limited only to that which we can see and touch is astonishingly unsatisfying. Those stern ramparts erected by materialism so imprison the soul that Pullman, (more one senses from writer's intuition than from philosopher's logic) allows his readers to venture out into the realms of fantasy.
First, a naturalistic worldview is not limited to what can be seen and touched (I've never seen an atom but I have ample reason to believe they exist).
Also, I, for one, have read a great deal of science fiction, written from a strictly naturalistic worldview, which was just as filled with wonder and awe-inspiring scope for the human "spirit" as can be found in any work of literature dealing with the supernatural.
There is no contradiction in a writer criticizing religion through the vehicle of a fantasy story that assumes the existence of the very things it criticizes. As just one example I've read with enjoyment, there's Mark Twain's LETTERS FROM THE EARTH. Its quite a legitimate and effective way for an author to satirize views which he may find worthy of criticism.
The strength of materialism is its simple, all-embracing nature: it admits of no exceptions.
Yet a moment’s consideration shows us that it is this very rigour that renders it a perilous argument. If a single exception to materialism’s iron rule be proved, then the defences are fatally undermined.
You say this as if it were a bad thing for someone to hold beliefs which are falsifiable. On the contrary, falsifiability is one of the hallmarks of a strong theory or hypothesis. It's one of the great strengths of naturalism (a better word than materialism---not all of us nonbelievers in the supernatural are materialists---I, for example, am not).
We naturalists have clear grounds upon which our views could be contradicted and, therefore, changed. One faith healer lays hands on an amputee and his limb magically grows back and naturalism is defeated---which is a good thing---unlike most religious believers I can state quite clearly and distinctly the sorts of empirical evidence that would convince me I'm mistaken.
Its when a belief is carefully orchestrated so that no empirical evidence could possibly contradict it that we should be suspicious (as is so common in religious claims).
Admit the existence of a single effective prayer, one genuine apparition from beyond the grave, or a solitary fulfilled prophecy and the whole materialistic edifice comes tumbling down.
Yes, isn't it wonderful? I know what evidence would show my worldview to be mistaken.
Can you say the same about yours?
Reply to this-
Saturday, December 22. 2007
Chris Walley wrote:
Hi David,
Welcome, always nice to have an alternative view. I always get uneasy about mutual appreciation societies! Answering you is a problem because I am only allowed 3000 words. So I will break a rule and post it as a new blog shortly.
Chris
Reply to this
-
Saturday, December 22. 2007
Chris Walley wrote:
-
Saturday, December 22. 2007
Michael A. Heald wrote:
Hello! Christianity is a rational faith. Its postulates, tenets, and conclusions form a reasonable and rational whole.
When atheism's conclusions are traced back to reveal unprovable postulates (by definition, postulates are unprovable), atheists become quite concerned. A system based on that which is observable and provable should not have to "believe" or "have faith" in anything.
Some atheists cannot admit the basis of faith of their beliefs. They are difficult to talk with because they feel that they should have all the answers and when they don't, they become angry.
I have a lot of respect for atheists who recognize the faith-based nature of their underlying beliefs. Though I disagree with them, discussions with them are usually enlightening in many ways.
Michael A. Heald
Reply to this-
Saturday, December 22. 2007
david ellis wrote:
Hi, Michael. I have a few questions for you which never seem to be addressed by christians when they bring up this topic but which seem to me of central importance in discussing this issue:
What makes a postulate reasonable? Presumably there are unreasonable postulates to take as starting points (for example, I would assume you don't take solipsism to be a sensible postulate to hold, nor the belief that David Koresh was an incarnation of God). What is it that distinguishes a faith that is rational, as you describe yours from one which is not?
What do you hold as postulates/articles of faith and in what manner is it different from the ones mentioned above that makes yours rational and theirs irrational (if, that is, you actually think them irrational).
Please name for me what might be the most fundamental postulates/articles of faith of an atheist. Strangely enough, when bringing up this subject christians never seem to be very specific on comparing the postulates/articles of faith of christianity vs. atheism. I think the discussion would benefit from doing so.
Thanks,
David E.
Reply to this
-
Saturday, December 22. 2007
david ellis wrote:
-
Saturday, December 22. 2007
david ellis wrote:
Another point that I think needs to be made is to question your premise of equating the terms "faith" and "postulate". It doesnt seem to me that they are really synonymous.
For example, I think very little (and perhaps nothing) should be taken as "givens". Anything that is should be subject to the most rigorous examination and scrutiny. For if we are wrong in our starting point we will inevitably be mistaken in our whole worldview. To take as a self-evident given that 2+2=4 is hardly the same as to take as an article of faith that the Gospel of Matthew is the inspired Word of God.
Is "article of faith" really the right term for the belief that its self-evidently true that 2+2=4 and similar such basic concepts?
I would question whether it is. It seems to mean that this stretches the meaning of "faith" so much that it bears little relationship to the way the word is actually used and understood in any normal context.
Reply to this -
Saturday, December 22. 2007
david ellis wrote:
Typo, that should be "seems to me" not "seems to mean" in the last paragraph above.
Reply to this -
Sunday, January 27. 2008
pcguuqti wrote:
vyssxawz">http://gvuhxxzb.com">vyssxawz [URL=http://rpfrhycp.com]iqphgcum[/URL] fhdfkcai http://hhqbdrlj.com nijbbvbp teyhirut
Reply to this -
Saturday, April 05. 2008
vqxywhta wrote:
yyotntxp http://lfmlzvls.com uzezlcih ausmkrlh olpylnrz">http://xmxxwwjk.com">olpylnrz [URL=http://kdtzcilc.com]ejmryghy[/URL]
Reply to this
| Page: 1 of 1 |