This is the second 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.'"
I wonder how aware Philip Pullman is of the deep irony at the core of his trilogy, "His Dark Materials," the first of which, "The Golden Compass" is releasing on Friday as a movie. Almost everybody who's ever heard of him knows that he's an atheist and a humanist. He has repeatedly insisted that "there ain't no elsewhere"--this physical universe is all there is, there are no transcendent dimensions of reality, and there is no supernatural being outside of space and time. To be fair, Pullman does acknowledge that there may be one, but he insists that he's seen not the slightest shred of evidence. He recognizes that technically he's an agnostic but, like so many, he has a default presumption that atheism is true.
Pullman teeters on the edge of the common trap of imagining that the burden of proof is entirely on the believer: Those who believe in God must present compelling evidence of his existence, or he will continue to believe that such a being cannot exist. Yet the belief that we inhabit an entirely materialist universe is equally a truth claim in need of evidence to support it. The default position, if neither side was to produce evidence, must be to say that we don't know--which is why I give Pullman the benefit of the doubt, as it were, and say that he's on the brink of falling into the trap.
Where is the irony? It's this: A man who claims to be a materialist (a believer in a purely physical universe) writes a story revolving around a cosmic, superhuman intelligence that communicates, guides, and directs in a remarkably god-like way. "Dust" is a brilliant idea which provides the central narrative tension to "His Dark Materials," and which propels the narrative forward by guiding Lyra through the alethiometer, her truth-telling device. "So many worlds, but common to them all is Dust," we're told by a voiceover early in "The Golden Compass." We're also told that Dust was here before people, ice bears, and other conscious beings. Dust seems to be the most fundamental reality in the universe.
This seems to be a very spiritual idea. It certainly reintroduces some aspects of God back into the picture. But does that mean that Philip Pullman is really telling a profoundly spiritual story? Perhaps, in its broadest sense, given that some humanists speak of spiritual dimensions to life when they refer to fundamental questions of human self-consciousness, purpose, and identity. However, to say that Pullman is telling a spiritual story runs the risk of suggesting that there is a deliberateness about it; even, perhaps inferring some actively spiritual motivation and relativizing his atheist claims.
Inferring others' motivations is problematic, because we can never really know what goes on in someone else's head. Even statements which apparently announce the motivation may be misleading, as I suggested in my previous article, especially when those statements are inconsistent. Nevertheless, someone's motivation arises out of their worldview, so reflecting carefully on the worldview helps to suggest what motivations are likely or possible.
Pullman's worldview is well documented from interviews: This world is all there is; human beings therefore have just one life to live, and we should learn to live wisely and responsibly in order to make the most of it, both for ourselves and for others. It is unlikely, therefore, that Pullman views Dust as being in any way spiritual. Dust is physical. It would appear that, for Pullman, Dust was a way of dealing with religious issues while affirming a materialist view of reality. This, surely, is the reason why the shadow particle researcher from our world is Mary Malone, the physicist who has renounced belief in spiritual reality.
Despite all this, though, the irony remains in that Philip Pullman the materialist intuitively reached for models which encapsulate features of the very worldview he denies so strongly. He has said that he doesn't believe in the kingdom of heaven, and yet "we need all the things that heaven meant, we need joy, we need a sense of meaning and purpose in our lives, we need a connection with the universe, we need all the things that the kingdom of heaven used to promise us but failed to deliver."
My contention is that such things are inherently spiritual in origin and, like moral values, require the existence of a God beyond the physical realm. Pullman objects to this idea and yet unwittingly, it seems, stumbles into tying them up with something that is at least reminiscent of God. Perhaps it's harder to jettison such concepts, such realities, than Philip Pullman realizes.
For Idol Chatter's complete coverage of "The Golden Compass," click here.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
***"...moral values, require the existence of a God beyond the physical realm..."
No they don't. Moral values are a reflection of the individual. Period. Some of us do not need to be threatened with eternal damnation in order to be decent human beings. We are decent human beings because we actually are decent human beings. To suggest that non-religious people are not good people is simply proof of how arrogant religion is.
The Nazis were all Christians. They believed in God. You know, like a "God beyond the physical realm" (thus a guarantee of higher spiritual ground)
Republicans (in the USA), also tend to be Christians too, although I would think than Jesus would definately be a supporter of universal healthcare and not support the NRA and big tobbaco. But who knows, maybe Jesus supports tobbaco because he started charging big $$$ for healing lung cancer. That would be a very American thing to do.
After all, morals require a supreme being...
For more on why there needs to be a God to warrant objective morality, see William Lane Craig, 'The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality' at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/meta-eth.html
But note that to say that there needs to be a God in order to have objective morality does not imply that everyone who believes in God (or professes to do so) is therefore moral, and it does not imply that those who don't believe are immoral. What it says is, if there's no God then morality is entirely a matter for personal choice and there is no 'ought' about it.
First, I would just like to say that spectre170 raises a good point. It makes me think of the time when my grandma told me that my cousin-in-law, who is one of the nicest people I know, will not go to Heaven because he is Buddhist. "It doesn't matter that he is a good person," she said. I was absolutely appalled by that statement and it did not sit right with me. But then again, I am not a Bible-banging Christian. The only Good Book that I pay attention to is the one that God is writing in my heart. And, sorry fundies, but my heart says that the belief that only Christians get to experience Heaven after death is a mistaken one, and as spectre puts it, very arrogant. God does not play favorites. In fact, She tends to show up in the most unusual places.
Such as in this movie.
I recently received an email from my mother regarding the release of The Golden Compass in theatres. The email implied that this movie was a threat to Christianity and that we should keep our children from viewing it and therefore being tempted to read the books which are twice as threatening as the movie.
This email so enraged me that I replied back to my mom, stating that they said the same thing about Harry Potter. And look now! They found God in Harry Potter didn't they? Who's to say that God will not show up in The Golden Compass as well, whether Pullman likes it or not? I told her I would judge for myself, and so would my child, whether this movie lacked God. After all, everything in this world is neutral. The only meaning that anything has in this world is the meaning that we give it. That goes for Satan too, fundies. The only meaning, i.e. power, that Satan has in this world is the power that we have given It. "God" is All There Is. Regardless of whatever name you wish to call Him.
"Dust" was one of the more obvious symbols in the film, IMHO. I believe it represents creative energy, or as Freud called it, "Sexual energy". The whole speech Mrs. Coulter gave Lyra near the end of the movie, is very similar to the story of Adam and Eve. Our earliest human ancestors were naughty, therefore none of us are now innocent...
When creative energy (as in a creative life force) is not manipulated by organized religion, it creates more Life. In the pagan cultures, the life force was recognized as powerful and super-natural. Fertility was honored and encouraged, not restricted.
Monotheists arrived on the scene in world history along-side private land ownership. Private ownership created patriarchy. Private ownership is enforced by those who are physically bigger and more intimidating (more powerful men, in general). Land and wealth were then passed along male bloodlines. The church became the institution by which procreation was managed. By making laws and rules about sexuality (marriage), it could be channeled, tracked, and made orderly. Organized, dualistic, patriarchal religion is threatened by the Life force being in the hands of individuals.
I have not read the books, so I do not know if my theory holds for the rest of the trilogy.
Interspiritual,
Pullman is (among other things) a world-class Milton scholar, and he has said that the "Materials" trilogy was inspired by "Paradise Lost" (The title comes from book II of the Epic Poem), so the "Fallen" allusion is not accidental:-)
As for "Dust": I think "lifeforce," "creative energy," "primordial creativity" (as we call it in process theology), and even "erotic" energy is right on the money (Listen to Pullman's interview with Donna, "Is Dust the Divine?" http://blog.beliefnet.com/idolchatter/2007/11/exclusive-video-philip-pulman.html , and see the related chapter in her excellent book, "Killing the Imposter God"), though I would stay away from Freud's EXTREMELY limited, overly "genital" use of the term (You'd do better with Paul Tillich's or Rita Nakashima Brock's writings on "erotic" power).
Is Dust "material"? Perhaps. But it really depends on how one actually DEFINES words like "material" and "spiritual." I attend and participate in a lot of "science and religion" conferences, and I can tell you, these terms are not nearly as "unambiguous" as Watkins seems to suggest.
For example, "material" or "physical" are often used to refer to "entities that follow the 'laws' of physics," i.e., objects that can in theory be studied in terms of deterministic 'physical' principles.
But there is also what Aristotle called "Prime Matter," the primordial "stuff" out of which (physical) stuff is ultimately constituted. But Prime Matter (what Whitehead called "Pure Creativity") is NOT ITSELF "PHYSICAL" the way, say, "atoms," or "wood" or "flesh and bone" is physical. (And don't get me STARTED on the question of whether the "superstrings" of "String" Theory should properly be called "physical" or not!)
Furthermore, many CHRISTIAN philosophers of science and religion (including some EVANGELICALS, like Nancey Murphy at Fuller Theological) STRONGLY reject the existence of "spiritual" realms, and the idea that people have "immortal souls," and whole-heartedly EMBRACE "materialism" or "physicalism"(albeit of the "non-reductive" variety), so we can't just ASSUME that all "materialists" are "atheists." Pullman is; Murphy and Warren Brown, for instance, are most definitely NOT! (See Murphy's short book- "Bodies and Souls, or 'Spirited' Bodies?" for more on this position)
And THEN, to make matters (no pun intended) even MORE complicated, there are "atheistic materialists," like the notable biologist Ursula Goodenough, and the philosopher Robert Solomon, who consider themselves to be "very spiritual" people! (Goodenough even calls her position "religious" naturalism"; see her book, "The Sacred Depths of Nature." Note the use of the terms "sacred," "depth," and "spiritual" by someone who most definitely does NOT believe in an Agent God (yes, I've spoken to her personally).
In other words, we have to be VERY CAREFUL before deciding that the books/movie(s) shouldn't be considered "spiritual."
I'll address the "transcendental ethics" question in another post...
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.