Follow-ups: Pullman
Feb. 7th, 2008 10:35 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackPullman
* I think "God is bad, therefore doesn't exist" is a humorous paraphrasing and simplification of how many people, including me, saw the books [expanded below] whether or not they agreed with it, or the books intended it.
* However, I assumed Pullman intended that, but it seems quite probably not. Not everything is covered by what an author says, but from interviews eg. http://www.thirdway.org.uk/past/showpage.asp?page=3949 it sounds like it was deliberately anti-organised-church but not anti-god.
* He also specified that there was a deliberate portrayal of the bad aspects of organised religion, which he does feel are sometimes overwhelming in this world, but that there would naturally be good churchmen in that world (and there certainly are in this, he describes as a child knowing a very unobjectionable, nice sort of church community) even if he didn't portray any in the books.
* He described God as, if I interpret correctly, plainly to him absent from current influence on the world, but may or may not be out there somewhere.
Wanting to believe
A lot of interesting views arose from the discussion. Specifically, the relationship between wanting to believe and believing. Several people pointed out (with very articulate, interesting views, actually, thanks) that a common progression might be someone becoming disillusioned with God, and then naturally progressing to being a hard no-evidence-occam's-razor-doesn't exist atheist. And conversely, an appeal of the idea ("Maybe there never was any Narnia, but I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't,") certainly is part of people believing it.
For that matter, in real life, people often believe things they want to be true -- apart from normal statistical difficulties, if you're examining a complex social or card-play situation, you often seize on the chance you want to be true, and almost expect it, although a sober calculation would lead you to expect otherwise.
Which is normal, but I don't think sensible, it'd be better not to if you could (in most situations). However, I don't think that's all that's going on with religion, I have an instinctive feeling that the progressions I describes *do* make sense in some way, but can't explain what.
Can anyone expand on that?
ETA: cf. [dagger]
The underlying point of the previous post
I described Narnia, in the ways it talks about Christianity, as potentially being described by two thrusts:
(a) Factual, painting a picture of how God could goodly, justly, etc run a world
(b) Emotional, explaining why we might want to live in such a world
And that correspondingly, the Northern Lights argument (that Pullman maybe didn't intend, but many people saw) might be described as:
(a) Factual, drawing attention to the problems of a world where people follow a God who isn't there
(b) Emotional, comparing the situation with the authority to this world, that God (in this argument) appears absent and non-intervening, so if he exists, is as disastrous as the situation with the authority.
(c) And conflating not liking the evolved conception of God with not thinking he exists
(d) And for that matter, having an uplifting metaphor of instead of *rejecting* god, having to successfully *rebel* against God.
(And if that seems complicated or potentially flawed, well exactly, that's the point I was making, that's why people seeing the books in that light feel uncomfortable about it.)
However, despite many people seeing them more as anti-church than anti-god, some people said they *did* feel more atheist afterwards, or at least more sympathetic. If anyone's willing to share, how did you think you saw the argument -- more atheist as in less organised-religion-y, or less theistic, and if so, does my description make any sense to you?
Replies later, but ETA:
Does anyone know, "Job: A Comedy of Justice" by Heinlien? I thought it was funny, but weird. However, I just remembered it as that was a one-view-of-Christian-theology that seemed to share God-sucks with being perceived as an atheist position (at least by me).
* I think "God is bad, therefore doesn't exist" is a humorous paraphrasing and simplification of how many people, including me, saw the books [expanded below] whether or not they agreed with it, or the books intended it.
* However, I assumed Pullman intended that, but it seems quite probably not. Not everything is covered by what an author says, but from interviews eg. http://www.thirdway.org.uk/past/showpage.asp?page=3949 it sounds like it was deliberately anti-organised-church but not anti-god.
* He also specified that there was a deliberate portrayal of the bad aspects of organised religion, which he does feel are sometimes overwhelming in this world, but that there would naturally be good churchmen in that world (and there certainly are in this, he describes as a child knowing a very unobjectionable, nice sort of church community) even if he didn't portray any in the books.
* He described God as, if I interpret correctly, plainly to him absent from current influence on the world, but may or may not be out there somewhere.
Wanting to believe
A lot of interesting views arose from the discussion. Specifically, the relationship between wanting to believe and believing. Several people pointed out (with very articulate, interesting views, actually, thanks) that a common progression might be someone becoming disillusioned with God, and then naturally progressing to being a hard no-evidence-occam's-razor-doesn't exist atheist. And conversely, an appeal of the idea ("Maybe there never was any Narnia, but I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't,") certainly is part of people believing it.
For that matter, in real life, people often believe things they want to be true -- apart from normal statistical difficulties, if you're examining a complex social or card-play situation, you often seize on the chance you want to be true, and almost expect it, although a sober calculation would lead you to expect otherwise.
Which is normal, but I don't think sensible, it'd be better not to if you could (in most situations). However, I don't think that's all that's going on with religion, I have an instinctive feeling that the progressions I describes *do* make sense in some way, but can't explain what.
Can anyone expand on that?
ETA: cf. [dagger]
The underlying point of the previous post
I described Narnia, in the ways it talks about Christianity, as potentially being described by two thrusts:
(a) Factual, painting a picture of how God could goodly, justly, etc run a world
(b) Emotional, explaining why we might want to live in such a world
And that correspondingly, the Northern Lights argument (that Pullman maybe didn't intend, but many people saw) might be described as:
(a) Factual, drawing attention to the problems of a world where people follow a God who isn't there
(b) Emotional, comparing the situation with the authority to this world, that God (in this argument) appears absent and non-intervening, so if he exists, is as disastrous as the situation with the authority.
(c) And conflating not liking the evolved conception of God with not thinking he exists
(d) And for that matter, having an uplifting metaphor of instead of *rejecting* god, having to successfully *rebel* against God.
(And if that seems complicated or potentially flawed, well exactly, that's the point I was making, that's why people seeing the books in that light feel uncomfortable about it.)
However, despite many people seeing them more as anti-church than anti-god, some people said they *did* feel more atheist afterwards, or at least more sympathetic. If anyone's willing to share, how did you think you saw the argument -- more atheist as in less organised-religion-y, or less theistic, and if so, does my description make any sense to you?
Replies later, but ETA:
Does anyone know, "Job: A Comedy of Justice" by Heinlien? I thought it was funny, but weird. However, I just remembered it as that was a one-view-of-Christian-theology that seemed to share God-sucks with being perceived as an atheist position (at least by me).
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 12:28 pm (UTC)However, despite many people seeing them more as anti-church than anti-god, some people said they *did* feel more atheist afterwards, or at least more sympathetic.
You'd expect that thought, wouldn't you? If there was a film that portrayed the theists are the lovely great people being oppressed by the evil atheists you'd come away from it feeling less atheistic. If a story is well written you get immersed in it, feel part of the world, and see it from the perspective of the heroes. When you leave that world it will have changed you a bit, even if only emotionally.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 01:50 pm (UTC)The most obvious example is the American Catholic Church, who certainly said loudly that it was pursuing an atheist agenda.
Mind you, I suppose it's not so surprising that the hierarchy of a Catholic church in particular can't draw a clear distinction between God and their specific organised religion (or perhaps, more cynically, that they have a vested interest in convincing other people that there is no such distinction to be drawn).
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 05:22 pm (UTC)That's what I get for filtering out the Catholic church.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 07:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 11:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 06:41 pm (UTC)Well, yes, I did expect that, but then you got through persuading me that the film doesn't show good atheists oppressed by evil theists but good non-organised-religionists oppressed by organised-religion-ists.
The extent to which there's a, and the nature of the, metaphor between Atheist and Asrielist is what I want to understand :)
Although, indeed, if you get immersed then whether the metaphor works on a superficial level (eg. Asriel doesn't follow God) or deep level (eg. has a similar philosophical basis as atheists do) it certainly feels like that, but what I was originally saying was that I wanted to be immersed in that aspect of it, but wasn't, because of problems with the metaphor.
(Hm, that's another way of looking at it -- that Asriel's position is that of one not disbelieving in God but refusing to put faith in him (correctly) and the film bolsters *that* belief, with the aforementioned indirect relationship to being atheist and disbelieving God.)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 06:55 pm (UTC)It's down to what people mean when they say they feel more atheist. They can't (technically) mean anti-god at all because atheists don't think there is a god.
I suspect what they mean is that they felt more anti-religion. You don't have to be anti-religion to be an atheist, but that's what a lot of atheists are known for, so I think it's reasonable for people to say they felt more atheistic if they mean more anti-religion.
OTOH if you're a paid up religious believer you might assume that 'atheist' means "someone who intentionally rebels against God". I'd be interested to know what people meant when they said they felt more atheist afterwards (what [Bad username or site: atreic' / @ livejournal.com] meant for example).
Given that intellectually the books only aim their main cannons at a kind of hyper catholicism, the question is why people would feel anti-religion or anti-god at all as a result of watching it. I think the reason for this is that when you immerse yourself in a story you emotionally become part of that world, and in Lyra's world that is what "religion" is. So when you leave the book you remember intellectually all the reasons that hyper-catholicism is bad, but you feel less friendly towards religion in general.
Maybe?