This is the last in a series of blog posts about “The Golden Compass” by guest blogger Tony Watkins, author of “Dark Materials: Shedding Light on Philip Pullman’s Trilogy ‘His Dark Materials.’”
Eyebrows are sometimes raised in my direction when I say that Philip Pullman’s “His Dark Materials” trilogy is not something that Christians should be afraid of, run away from, or prevent their children from reading. Rather, I think it’s something that we should engage with seriously. I understand the need to protect children from unhelpful influences, but I don’t believe that we should necessarily stop them watching the film or reading the books.
The key thing, for me, is whether or not they’re ready for it. The problem is that we have to do more than protect children while they’re young; we also need to equip them to deal with the world and its frequent hostility to people of faith. My conviction is that I need to help my boys understand and respond to the challenges, not insulate them. After all, being denied access to something can greatly increase its attractiveness.
So I do want them to read “His Dark Materials” at some point. I want them to appreciate the breadth of a great storyteller’s imagination and the quality of his writing. And I want them to feel the force of the challenges this story presents and to be able to respond to them intelligently. Some of them are significant, but nothing that they won’t soon meet in the school playground.
The most obvious of these challenges is Philip Pullman’s view of the nature of reality. People often lament that he kills God off in “The Amber Spyglass,” but he’s only able to do this because of something more fundamental: He redefines “God” as merely a physical being in the latter stages of decrepitude–a fraud, an imposter, a delusion. Pullman believes in the idea of multiple universes, but not in any spiritual or supernatural dimensions. As he often says, “There ain’t no elsewhere.” So God, angels, ghosts are all made of matter like everything else, but rather insubstantial and thin. They are made of Dust, the particles of consciousness that permeate reality.
“God died a long time ago,” Pullman exclaims. What he means is, “It’s as if God has died. That’s the feeling I have.” The idea of God is redundant. He insists that “God” is nothing more than a metaphor: “I don’t expect Christians to see God as a metaphor, but that’s what he is. Perhaps it might be clearer to call him a character in fiction, and a very interesting one too: one of the greatest and most complex villains of all.” For Pullman, everything is either physical or an abstract concept.
My response to this is one that riles Philip Pullman: If there is nothing beyond this physical universe (or multiple universes, if you like; it resolves nothing and creates more problems than it solves), then there is no solid basis for objective morality or truth. There must be something beyond the system to guarantee such things.
If there is nothing more, no God, we are here through processes which are either entirely deterministic or utterly random. If every thought in my mind is a product of deterministic or random processes, how do I know that what I think is true? I cannot. Pullman is adamant that I am deluded, and that he is not. But we cannot know, since my brain generates my beliefs and his generates his. There is no objectivity because there is no true external reference point.
If there is nothing beyond us, how can we discriminate between one person’s set of moral values and another’s? Pullman’s values are similar to my own, but if he’s right we cannot claim any objectivity to valuing truth, kindness, self-sacrifice, and moral responsibility–they are merely relative human ideas. I maintain that the values by which Pullman lives are derived from a Christian worldview, the inheritance of his upbringing. He goes up in smoke at this: “I’m amazed by the gall of Christians. You think that nobody can possibly be decent unless they’ve got the idea from God or something.” But he misses the point. It’s not that only Christians can be moral, but the question is, why is there any sense of ought, any moral value, in a world without God?
Pullman is remarkably optimistic about human nature and our ability to make a better world, but our track record is diabolical. Total autonomy from God is not the way to true freedom and wisdom, but the ultimate delusion. We are most fully human when we live in relationship with God and within his moral framework. This is the most crucial thing to discover in life, and reading and discussing “His Dark Materials” together will be a powerful way of exploring it with my kids.
You can read more of Tony Watkins’s thoughts on “The Golden Compass” and find resources about the movie here. For Idol Chatter’s complete coverage of “The Golden Compass,” click here.
posted December 10, 2007 at 2:27 pm
“I’m amazed by the gall of Christians. You think that nobody can possibly be decent unless they’ve got the idea from God or something.” But he misses the point. It’s not that only Christians can be moral, but the question is, why is there any sense of ought, any moral value, in a world without God
I’d imagine that most atheist or even those unaware of Christianity would see the question as why do morals require god or religion? The fact is Christianity is relatively new religion, and not really required for imagining or living by moral values. Some faith and or belief maybe required, but that faith or belief doesn’t need to be with God or specifically a christian god.
posted December 12, 2007 at 2:57 pm
“If there is nothing beyond this physical universe … then there is no solid basis for objective morality or truth. There must be something beyond the system to guarantee such things.”
One striking feature of this argument (and of this essay generally) is its reliance on arbitrary imperatives such as this: “there must be.” Such a claim reasonably begs a question–”says who?”
I imagine one answer to this question might be something along the lines of “God says.” For what it’s worth, this is OK by me, if that’s how you understand the world. But I hope it’s not too churlish to observe that such an answer presupposes “something beyond the system, a guarantor of truth,” who tells us so. The reasoning is circular: there must be something beyond because there is something beyond.
Again, it’s fine with me if you’re satisfied with this: please live a happy life and try not to hurt too many other people along the way. But wouldn’t it be nice if we could answer the question without turning in such a tight circle, or putting words in Somebody’s mouth?
Who says? On re-reading Mr. Watkins’s essay, the answer that comes most conveniently to hand is that Mr. Watkins says. Which, again, is fine, but if we’re seeking an ultimate guarantor of truth, I would hope for something a little more, well, ultimate.
What if we were to refuse the question entirely? What if there is no solid basis, no “objective” morality? What if there are no guarantees?
When I consider this, I don’t hear the universe tottering. What I hear, instead, is something pretty familiar: a world in which our greatest challenge is to use our capacity for sympathy and imagination to live with others as happily as we can. As for truth and guarantees, I don’t really see the need (or much possibility) for the latter. And my sense of human history is that claims for the former are generally the opening salvo in some horrible atrocity.
But this is just what I believe. I’m not at all offended if you choose to believe something different. It’s about what you believe, finally, isn’t it?
Which means that all of this debate is pointless: faith, like taste, isn’t arguable. So what’s fueling all this? Is the argument possibly about which faith is better? Supreme? Right?
God forbid. But the rhetoric of Truth that keeps popping up suggests to me that this is exactly what’s driving this. I trust that the stakes are lower this time than they were during that last great upwelling of Catholic fervor, when the stakes were to be burnt at. But even so, I’d like to pose a few more questions. Is it OK with all of you self-identified Catholics if I go on being Wrong? And maybe even if somebody writes a book or makes a film that is Wrong? Do we need your permission?
posted January 19, 2008 at 6:59 am
Can you be good without God? Why not? Humanism asks THINKING and MORALITY! Hitler was not humanist, nor was Stalin. Stalin terrorised Christians and denied thinking. Christians like great Dorothea- Dix who tried to save mentally ill from the depravity of “sane” people in 19th century, Dorothy Day who helped homeless and poor in Depression area etc.- these people as villains of Golden compass would horrify me. A witch-hunting, dirty-minded Montague Summers or his idols, the writers of Malleus Maleficarum would make the perfect villains, though…
posted January 22, 2008 at 11:15 pm
As a humanist alongside the one’s who’ve posted here so far, I’d like to see some responses to this, because I’m equally curious. Why can’t the arbiter of moral truth be whichever beings one’s actions affect — the victims or benefactors? Why is God allowed to be self-existent, but not (the poor thing!) morality?
posted January 25, 2008 at 9:12 am
Why purity of kindness, truth and love – including physical love – should be punished by God? In Pullmans work, children fight for those themes: against cruelty and abuse, for truth and love. In Bible there is something about a person who calls good as evil and evil as good. Hm…
posted March 18, 2008 at 1:04 am
i am a young catholic, maybe i dont know much. i have read the books and found them offensive as a catholic. it was a systematic destruction of the bible. i believe thats why catholics are in an uproar. the author adds whatever is needed to satisfy the story. i thought nothing was to be added/removed from the writings of the bible. how would other religions like it if someone took opposition to their beliefs. i do admit that the books were written quite well. almost too well, someone could be confused to think that way. if someone never read the bible or even had a religion, read the golden compass or seen the movie, made a determination of belief based on what was modified from the bible, and never persued their beliefs further, damage to faith is done. i cannot see anyone who has a faith, be NOT OFFENED by a destruction of their system, whatever book it may be.