Posted by Siamang on: 04.12.2006 /
Philip Pullman is the author of the “His Dark Materials” trilogy. He’s an outspoken atheist and secularist. He has the ear of many children all over the english-speaking world. His books are going to be turned into large-budget movies a’la Harry Potter.
Conservative British columnist Peter Hitchens called him “The most dangerous author in Britain, and said he’s exactly what “atheists would have been praying for, if atheists prayed.” Is he our C.S. Lewis?
I would call him a children’s intellectual. He is a brilliant, thoughtful, educated voice of reason, and outspoken voice for reason.
He has a fascinating view of the Bible. One of his characters remarks that the Bible isn’t literally true, but it’s kind of like an imaginary number. Not anything real, but using it you can calculate all sorts of useful things.
His view is that drama — theatre, novels, even film — is a moral instructor.
People in the audience had chuckled when Pullman read the line about the theatre being a “School of Morals,” but he insisted that the inscription wasn’t ironic.
…..
“We learn from Macbeth’s fate that killing is horrible for the killer as well as victim,” he said, before reading a passage from “Emma,” by Jane Austen, in which the heroine is mortified when Mr. Knightley reproaches her for mocking poor, garrulous Miss Bates. The scene, Pullman said, shows that “we can learn what’s good and what’s bad, what’s generous and unselfish, what’s cruel and mean, from fiction”; there is no need to consult scripture.
As Pullman once put it in a newspaper column, “ ‘Thou shalt not’ might reach the head, but it takes ‘Once upon a time’ to reach the heart.”
Read this fascinating article from the New Yorker about Pullman.
Far From Narnia
Siamang
Comment by: TXatheist
1Never heard of him but I’m no fan of Isaac Asimov either, don’t care for sci-fi outside of Star Wars and mostly the original set.
Comment by: Dean
2I’ve seen his books, but never read them. And while we differ in our view of the Scriptures, I wholly agree with his quote.
As Pullman once put it in a newspaper column, ” ‘Thou shalt not’ might reach the head, but it takes ‘Once upon a time’ to reach the heart.”
Comment by: NCxian
3From the New York times article:
Like the quote Dean pulled out above, Pullman’s comments address the issue of the relationship between story, truth, fact, (and other words that I dare not mention), that seem to find their way into a lot of our conversations here. When we talk about anything that is not tangible, we are forced to rely on story and metaphor, on ‘Once upon at time’. I think it is fair to say that to a great extent, the value of sacred texts is their “once upon a time”-ness–that they tell a “truth” through story (whether you believe the stories are “fact” or not).
Comment by: NCxian
4Correction, I meant the New Yorker article that Siamang linked us to.
Comment by: Ir
5I think Pullman’s trilogy His Dark Materials is awesome!!
His kids’ fiction is better than C.S. Lewis’s I think - he’s a more gifted writer in that genre. (Pullman’s books are actually more for adolescents so it’s not an entirely fair comparison)
Part of the subtlety of the trilogy is that Lyra has to decide between competing versions of ‘truth’ told to her by different authority figures. And she is strongly disposed to believe Lord Asriel because of personal loyalty to him - but that doesn’t mean his version of the ‘truth’ is correct.
The books do present truth as an objective reality. Some people are right and some people are wrong. The part I found very real is that it’s not always easy to tell who is right and who is wrong, because everyone has an agenda of sorts and personal loyalties tend to bias us towards believing some people more than others.
Comment by: Lisa Wellington
6I really like the idea of getting out of our heads and into our hearts.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
7This is quite interesting. From comments above and as much of the New Yorker as I read, it would appear that Pullman believes in Natural Law. (I’m assuming this, else what would be the source of moral instruction in the theater or books.)
And what is interesting about that, to me, is that CS Lewis was also a huge proponent of Natural Law. Of course, he saw it as an evidence of a Law Giver.
And this intrigues because here with these two great men, as well as HERE with us lesser mortals, I have noticed repeatedly that perhaps the chief difference between the Christians and atheists here is that they look at the same data and draw different conclusions.
Very interesting. May need to add Pullman to my ‘To Read’ list.
Comment by: Julie C.
8hmmm these books are a soapbox topic for me. Let’s just say that as a kid I really liked Pullmans stuff (like The Tiger in the Well - fun historical fiction). I was excited to encounter the His Dark Materials series. Books 1 and 2 were great. I wasn’t sure where he was going with them, but the worlds and characters he created were amazing. Then came book 3 The Amber Spyglass. I stay up all night to read it and when I finished it I literally threw it across the room in disgust. The plot just fell apart and the book turned into an antichristian sermon. My issue wasn’t that he expressed antichristian ideas, but that it was a sermon instead of a story and that it was all about the negative beliefs rather than the positive. And the whole conclusion of (spoiler alter) having the children collect enough “dust” (read interesting experiences or even sin) so that when they die they can bribe the harpies in the afterlife with good stories so the harpies can show them the exit where they can annihilate themselves because the afterlife sucks after gay angels started a rebellion in heaven and killed god… that was just too disappointing of an ending to a very promising series. I love scifi/fantasy, but this just didn’t do it for me. Okay rant over. ;)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
9Is it possible for non atheists to get away with saying things like this without reading into her motives that she is in fact really mad at atheisim
Comment by: Siamang
10Tom wrote:
What brings you to the conclusion that the moral code in a story isn’t merely the product of the author of that story?
Comment by: Siamang
11Julie:
I agree. I didn’t care for the Dark Materials books. I didn’t even get to the third one.
While I like his ideas and his settings, I find his plotting and characterization to be abysmal.
Comment by: TXatheist
12Siamang,
I think that’s why CS Lewis switched personally from atheism to xianity. He stopped being truly moral and got greedy but pretended to still have a moral code. He put morality aside or at least only used as a written idea and not a followed concept he actually could live out. He saw the likelihood of selling fiction books with a religious theme in it to the religious so I think it just gave him the motivation to switch. It may have been purely selfish motives and greed but I think he saw how prior religious authors could sell books to people who are already believe the unbelievable and used the evidence of his research to switch to a different type of authorship. He abused the concept of moral code to make a product that he knew would sell to a particular type of reader.
Comment by: Ir
13Tom, I’m not sure what Natural Law is but it doesn’t sound like something Pullman would believe in. What he clearly does believe in is otherliness.
Julie, I think Pullman is unnecessarily nasty in his depiction of the church in his trilogy. Nevertheless, I think I was disenchanted enough myself with the Christian religious system to be ready for Pullman’s [albeit fantastic] view of the universe. If he was preaching I was willing to listen, I guess.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
14wow
Comment by: TXatheist
15Jim,
May I ask a serious question. Why are you so shocked at the idea that xianity is a crutch and people use it for their own insecurity(afterlife particularly and loved by someone)? Do you not see when you go to creation science website or ID websites or televangelists websites they always have something for you to buy? Please don’t tell me you don’t see the motivation behind their marketing. Tom used the word evidence and knew he was incorrect in saying Lewis or any other person saw the Natural Law needs a Law giver. There is no evidence of designer but it was a nice attempt by Tom to sneak it in there. NO evidence at all. None, zilch. Believing there is based on your religious views is completely different.
Comment by: TXatheist
16Jim,
Let me put it this way. One of my long term goals is to write a book. Getting published isn’t always easy. Selling a religious book for fundamentalists has actually crossed my mind. My moral code of ethics stops me every time. I don’t think it stopped C S Lewis and I in no way can prove this. I can say that Dan Barker used to sell many theistic materials in his minister days. Now he does ok with Freethought books but I’d bet my last dollar that he’d agree he’s sell many more if he wrote a book on how he abandoned atheism and went back to xianity. That’s my belief.
Comment by: TXatheist
17Jim,
In the Christian Triage topic I asked Mike why 78% of Texans voted against gay marriage. Care to speculate why that number of people is so high and just take a random stab at what percentage of that 78% are xians. Remember this is Texas and we have our limit on atheists, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus. One of them per county.
Comment by: Ir
18Are you suggesting that C.S. Lewis pretended to be a Christian so he could write books that would sell?
I think that’s a rather bizarre theory. Do you have any evidence to substantiate it?
Comment by: TXatheist
19It’s my belief and it’s no more bizarre than the the Chronicles of Narnia :)
Comment by: TXatheist
20Ir,
You don’t think the marketing behind religious books like Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell preys, yes preys on gullibility?
Comment by: Cully
21Hmmm… I’m surprised to see people who didn’t enjoy the Dark Materials trilogy, (or atheists at least I can see how theists might not like it) they are three of my favorite books. His concept of an external soul fascinated me, and Siamang if you didn’t read the third you missed some excellent looks at collaborative evolution, and the place of love in the evolutionary scheme. I don’t particularly recall the angels being gay… maybe I need to read them again.
Comment by: Julie C.
22oh, I completly agree. I thought his critique of religion was great - and thats part of why I loved the first two books. I just didn’t like where he took it literally.
Comment by: Julie C.
23okay - followup - I agree with your statement about being disenchanted with the church, not about the nasty part… sorry.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
24Thanks for the weak attempt at humility but you are no CS Lewis
Comment by: Mike C
25Actually, given the real facts of Lewis’ life (which I have studied in great detail), your theory is actually quite bizarre and completely insupportable. You claim to be big on “evidence” but I can guarantee you (as one who is personally academically qualified to speak on this topic) there is absolutely no evidence for the theory you propose about Lewis’ motivations.
Fact: The Christian publishing industry that we see today did not exist in Lewis’s day (the 1940’s & 50’s). There were no Christian bestsellers. Lewis could have had no expectations that any of his books would sell well at all just because they were “Christian”.
Fact: Lewis’ career actually suffered because he published Christian books. He was an Oxford tutor and for years the University refused to make him a full professor, despite being the authority in his field of medieval and Renaissance English literature. This was largely due to his Christian beliefs and his popular level books, like Narnia. The truth is, Oxford back then was very hostile to Christian beliefs, much as the academy still is today. Becoming a Christian was not a wise career move for Lewis.
Fact: Even though there is a huge amount of money being made off of Lewis’ writings today (much of which goes into a retreat center in Ireland for wounded and burnt out pastors - run by Lewis’ stepson Douglas), it was not that large when he was alive, however, it was substantial. But Lewis dealt with it by putting which he gave away to worthy causes and people in need. At one point he said, “I need to give this money away, or it will destroy me.”
Sorry bro’, but do your homework before you spout of crazy theories. :)
Comment by: Mike C
26Hmm, I think the computer ate part of my post. my last Lewis Fact should have read:
But Lewis dealt with it by putting it into an “Agape fund” which he gave away to worthy causes and people in need. At one point he said, “I need to give this money away, or it will destroy me.”
Comment by: TXatheist
27Jim,
I am no CS Lewis but if I ever get really desperate maybe I will be and sell books in the way he did. You’re right I am no CS Lewis, thanks. I hope I never sink that low.
Comment by: TXatheist
28Mike C,
It’s not a theory. Sorry, but that word, theory, is abused too much. A theory is scientific like evolution. ID, creationism and my view of CS Lewis is belief. As far as it being bizarre, it’s not half as bizarre as the book you look to for god but that’s my opinion. I didn’t say there was evidence. I clearly said it’s my belief. I think he was motivated to sell to a particular type of audience. Again, my belief because I understand marketing or at least how to market to xians. The University system is no hostile to beliefs. They are hostile to bizarre beliefs which you don’t think xianity is, I do and I understand the direct correlation between an institution of higher learning and why such a place would be hostile to bizarre beliefs. It’s contradictory. I’ll keep believing in my bizarre belief of why xian authors do what they do and you can keep believing in your bizarre beliefs. I have no desire to do my homework on Lewis. I see that his stories like Mere Christianity and Chronicles of Narnia are one in the same, fiction and nothing more.
Comment by: Ir
29Then, with all due respect, could you please refrain from performing character-assassination on him? Since you admit it is based on speculation and not evidence?
TX, I think it will undermine your credibility in general if you demonstrate that some of your firmly held opinions are (apparently) based on no evidence and are only speculation. Of course it’s up to you, but I don’t think it’s wise on your part to do this.
Comment by: Ir
30I don’t see what the marketing has to do with the sincerety of the authors or with whether you have evidence for your theories about C.S. Lewis’s intent.
But, since you asked, all marketing preys on the gullible in order to maximize profits/achieve thei agenda; I doubt Christian marketing is an exception to the rule.
Comment by: TXatheist
31Really, my car is marketed to me because I’m vulnerable to buying a reliable but comfortable car? I will cease to slander what I perceive most christian book sellers of when the other side realizes it’s no more of a character assassination than perpetuating a character who never actually did exist but yet they know what he said and how he lived according to some story book. I hear you Ir but I think xianity marketing is a scam. Lewis is no better imo.
Comment by: Ir
32TX, my personal opinion is that everyone who combines “I have a definite opinion on that” and “I have no desire to do any homework regarding whether my opinion is substantiated by the evidence” in any area of their life is vulnerable to marketing tactics, because it means that they don’t always check; they don’t always verify. So - just tap into that bias where they don’t check and you’ve got them right where you want them. Maybe you check the facts on cars and you won’t be fooled on those.
Is it responsible to spread what could be misinformation about C.S. Lewis, since it’s based solely on speculation? You are vulnerable for use as a tool of those wanting to spread a certain view of him, if nothing else.
TX, how can you call that character assassination? Name the person whose character is being assassinated by that if you want me to believe you.
And anyway, I would rather see you own your own behavior and not use the behavior of others as an excuse for anything you do. Shouldn’t your own behavior stand or fall based on its own merits?
With all due respect, I would be disappointed to discover that you live by the principle “As long as what I’m doing is not worse than what others are doing, it’s ok” - is that what you want to teach your child?
I know what you think but I have no idea why you would expect anyone to give any credence to an opinion of yours which you admittedly aren’t going to ‘do your homework on’.
Comment by: TXatheist
33Ir,
I still hear you, thanks. I can’t think of a way to know that CS Lewis was a con man and switched his mindset to sell books to xians. I can’t. I am speculating that I find him nearly the same as Benny Hinn, Josh McDowell. I perceive(imo) that making books like the chronicles of narnia which is fiction and he knows it and then also trying to rationalize xianity he knew what he was doing. He took a work of fiction and elaborated on it just like Mr. Brown and the DaVinci code. The topic is a big seller, xianity, and I can’t say that CS Lewis was aware for certain that selling chronicles of narnia as fiction and then selling Mere christianity as christian elaboration(not fiction)was in his plans. I think that he knew the difference but didn’t care because I think he is like Benny Hinn. He cares about selling his idea at any cost.
Do I want my kid to act better than xians? It depends on the action and each individual. Do I want him to set the bar so low that only being better than the worst xian is enough? No. Do I want him to let the xian badger another kid about being a jew or atheist or buddhist? No, I want him to confront the bully and tell him to shut up. Pacifist? No way.
Saying Jesus is god is character assassination to me. Saying the bible is the word of god is character assassination to me. If there is a god I would call him a blundering fool for sending that guy and writing that book. May I ask how you propose I go about finding out what CS Lewis motives were? Can’t I just believe he became an icon for the xians who think he elaborates on xianity in a philosophical manner but he’s still nothing more than fiction writer pandering to a particular group? I can’t control if you give me credence to my opinion. Literally, my opinion gets tossed aside all the time. If my opinion was so well expressed the xians on this board would understand jesus never existed. The barrier is too thick to penetrate:)
Comment by: Mike C
34In the same way any literary historian and biographer does research on their subject:
1) Read the author’s own thoughts about their motives. For instance, Lewis wrote an autobiography of his reasons for switching from atheism to Christianity, and a book of his journal entries after the death of his wife that will give you a lot of insight into his inner life.
2) You could also come up here to my alma mater, Wheaton College, to the Wade Center Library which houses the full collection of Lewis’ personal notes, letters, journals, book collection. These are the kinds of materials that any good historian/biographer would look through as “evidence” in piecing together a person’s motivations.
3)You could talk to people who knew Lewis personally, some of whom are still living, including his two stepsons. Or you could read the books on Lewis’ life and thought written by these people (try searching on “Walter Hooper”, “Clyde Kilby” or “Douglas Gresham” at Amazon).
4) You could do as I have done and read through Lewis’ own books. Of his 60+ published works, I’ve read about half, though I think this is probably more than enough to get a fair overview of what he actually believed. Something tells me that if he was merely pretending to be a Christian it might be a little hard to maintain this deception with consistency throughout so many books, and yet I never noticed any hints of insincerity or internal contradiction in any of the 30+ books of his that I have read.
But bottom line, Ir is right. You’re only hurting your own credibility by holding so tightly to this “opinion”. Personally, it doesn’t seem like you’re representing atheists very well with this kind of attitude. You’re not really giving me very many reasons to trust what you say.
Just being honest…
Comment by: Ir
35TX, I’m taking this to the discussion board here:
Was C.S. Lewis a liar?
I posted an answer to your most recent comments there.
Comment by: TXatheist
36Mike,
I appreciate tip #1, I’ll look into it.
#2, Wheaton college is not reputable in my opinion. It’s a notch above Liberty University or Bob Jones and I don’t think of them as institutions of higher learning, just being honest.
#3. I want to read from both sides. People who liked Lewis and people that thought he was a sham.
4. A waste of time. Don’t care for fiction/sci-fi.
Bottom line. Your opinion of me doesn’t mean squat. Hurting my credibility to a xian on xianity is hardly a concern. I don’t have to prove myself to you mike, you’re opinion isn’t a cherished token I’m shooting for. If you think Lewis is a good xian writer you have a bias already that I can’t penetrate. Mere xianity is best read before reading the rebuttal Mere Assertions. Read that too or am I the one who needs to see your side but not you see mine? See you over there Ir.
Comment by: Mike C
37Wheaton is just where the collection is housed. “Where” is not important, the point is that there are piles of authentic documents giving first hand insight into Lewis’ motivations.
Alright, then read A.N. Wilson’s biography of Lewis. His is probably the most negatively critical account of Lewis’ life, and yet even he doesn’t go so far as you to say that Lewis was just faking it. Sorry, as far as “people that though he was a sham”, you’re the only one I’ve ever met. :)
Actually the fantasy/sci-fi stuff was only a fraction of what he wrote.
I never thought it was. But most of the atheists at this site seem to be concerned with presenting a more thoughtful and positive image of themselves to the world in order to break down some of the negative stereotypes atheists have labored under. I’m sorry if I wrongly assumed you were among their number.
Comment by: TXatheist
38Mike said:
What else did he write?
If I’m the only one you’ve ever met that thinks mass media xian writers are a sham then you don’t know any atheists do you? :)
I am willing to have you understand atheism/myself but not going to agree that xian writers serve a good purpose to educating society. We may have to disagree on that. I do appreciate you recommending A.N. Wilson.
Comment by: Ir
39For one thing, he wrote his autobiography “Surprised by Joy”.
Comment by: TXatheist
40Thanks Ir, still looking for more books please that aren’t fantasy/sci-fi by CSL.
Comment by: Ir
41Mike, can we take this to the discussion board? I started a thread there already - the link is on this page under comment #35. You don’t have to be a member to post there - but if you’re posting as a guest and want your name on your post, you need to type it in the ‘name’ box.
If you register then you have the advantage that you can edit your posts and use the private messaging feature, among other things.
Comment by: Ir
42See the bibliography on Wikipedia’s C.S. Lewis entry It separates out fiction and non-fiction. But to you they’re all fiction, aren’t they - was it a trick question?
Comment by: TXatheist
43No Ir it wasn’t, see you on the DB
Comment by: Stephan
44I think TX’s point is that anything that mentions God or Christianity in a positive light is fiction in his mind. He is not referring to the Dewey Decimal System.
Comment by: TXatheist
45Stephan,
Do you mind if I explain myself?
Comment by: Stephan
46Go right ahead. I think what other people are referring to, however, is the accepted genre classification of Lewis’ books. Yes, Lewis wrote books categorized as fiction. But he also wrote books categorized as nonfiction. You appear to regard these as fiction, but that is your classification, not the one accepted in the literary world.
Comment by: TXatheist
47I wasn’t asking you for your permission. The literary world? Ok, bible is fiction or nonfiction. Two choices only.
Comment by: Stephan
48I wasn’t give permission, but you asked if I minded.
I believe if you go to a library or bookstore the Bible is categorized as nonfiction, although I am honestly not sure.
Comment by: TXatheist
49Funny, because when I see any other mythology it’s under fiction but the bible goes under non-fiction. Contradictory. The question of permission was rhetorical. In other words ask me something but don’t speak for me ever.
Comment by: Stephan
50I believe the categorization used in libraries and bookstores is the publishers intent, not the readers opinion.
I believe you said essentially the same thing I did. I noticed that others seemed to be having a hard time understanding your categorization of Lewis’ books, and I was trying to help out.
Comment by: TXatheist
51I don’t see your input as help in clarifying my posts. You don’t understand like Ir or Peter or bob or Mike C does. You are very different from them.
That’s my point. The intent of chronicles of narnia is to entertain through fiction. It’s based on fictional characters for the most part. The intent of the bible is to entertain through fiction and clearly should be put there by the library, bookstore and publisher.
Comment by: Mike C
52You guys go ahead. To be honest I’ve been deliberately avoiding the discussion boards, not because I don’t like you guys, :) but just because I really don’t have the time to be sucked into any more discussions or debates. We’re having a big kick-off for Via Christus this Saturday and I need to focus most of my attention on that.
I’ve pretty much said everything I have to say on this topic anyway. Thanks.
-Mike
Comment by: Ir
53Fair enough, Mike. Thanks for participating here as much as you have.
Neat! I hope it goes well.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
54No worries about that TX - unlikely you’ll ever get any opportunity to sink as low as Lewis.
I have to say that since the christian fundamentalists have abandoned this conversation you have really given fundamentalistic atheism some serious exposure.
Comment by: some gomer
55Txatheist: You Christians are dumb! you believe in something for which there is no evidence or justification.
a critic: If we should never believe without evidence, why do you believe C.S lewis was a fraud though you know nothing about his life or works?
TxAtheist: Well I believe it as an article of faith ::collapses into a singularity::
Cripes Tom Paine is red-lining his tachometer in the grave. You can say Lewis was a dope peddling a stupid philosophy (and hence doing a disservice to mankind) but you can’t accuse him of not following it.
Penn and Teller make some big bucks hawking atheism on Shotime’s “Bullsh#t!” are they stealth Christians (because obviously nobody could believe in something they make a living publically professing).
Funadmentalism makes you stupid. Regardless of which side of an issue you stand on.