What 'The Golden Compass' Really Says About Pullman's Belief

There's no such thing as "just a fiction writer writing fiction." All writers bring with them their own system of belief, their own way of looking at the world. There is no meaningless fiction. Every story has some meaning behind it, brought there by its author. Pullman's writing is chock full of meaning, heavy with symbols and metaphors, whether the reader realizes it or not. To turn Freud's phrase inside out, sometimes a cigar ISN'T just a cigar.

***"...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...

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.

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...