Philip Pullman's childish atheism

I've been receiving some e-mails in recent weeks asking about Philip Pullman, his best-selling trilogy, "His Dark Materials," and the soon-to-be released cinematic rendition of the first book, The Golden Compass. For the record, I've not yet read the trilogy—just parts of the first book. But I have read numerous interviews with Pullman, as well as some of his non-fiction essays; I did so in researching a piece for Catholic World Report, a companion article to a review of the books written by Sandra Miesel, who has read the trilogy, much to her disgust (one of her descriptives is, simply, "Repulsive!"). The articles will appear in the December issue of CWR (subscribe now!) Sandra and Pete Vere, who has written several pieces about Pullman and the trilogy, are working on what they hope will be 40 to 50 page pamphlet about the books. More on that in the near future, as information is available.

Here is a short clip from Sandra's article on the trilogy:

Despite his public avowals of atheism, Pullman was shrewd enough to maintain deniability. After all, the Authority is not actually God and the children do not mean to destroy him. One minor character admits that the existence of a real Creator is unknown. The Magisterium has the trappings of Catholicism, down to its Cardinals’ red robes and the Swiss Guard. But its actual teachings are barely glimpsed, beyond obsessions over sex and the suppression of scientific theories as heresy.

Pullman preaches against religion through the words of admirable characters yet claims that he is not responsible for what they say. When ex-Catholic nun and atheist Mary Malone dismisses Christianity as “a mistake,” is agreement between her opinion and Pullman’s own a mere coincidence? Are all those leading characters who rejoice at being recycled back into nature contradicting their author’s views? Pullman is even coy about his climax. He dismisses analysis of Lyra and Will’s amorous behavior as improper curiosity. 

And a snippet from my piece, which examines the "philosophy" of Pullman:

When Pullman discusses literature and writing, he displays the knowledge gained from a many years spent reading fiction and from studying English literature at Oxford. But his remarks about religion, focused mostly on Christianity, are broad, simplistic, and lacking the sort of detail that might suggest time spent studying Christian theology or philosophy. He sounds like the proverbial village atheist, spouting darkly and vaguely about the millions killed, the horrors of dogma, the evils of clergy, and the small-mindedness of orthodox believers. In an October 2000 interview with The Capital Times, Pullman opined that “the greatest moral advances have been made by religious leaders such as Jesus and the Buddha. And the greatest moral wickedness has been perpetrated by their followers. How many millions of people have been killed in the name of this religion or that one? Burnt, hanged, tortured. It's just extraordinary.” No specific examples were given and the tens of millions murdered in the twentieth century by atheistic regimes went unmentioned.

On one hand, I don't expect Pullman to be the second coming of Aristotle or even Hume, but since he has made so many public statements about his atheistic beliefs and understanding of religion, specifically Christianity, it seemed reasonable to take a look at what he has to say. Put simply, what he does say is underwhelming. It is notable for a glaring absence of anything remotely resembling serious study and thought, consisting mostly of clichés ("I'm for open-mindedness and tolerance"), vague silliness ("I think the world today is in some danger of becoming medieval again"), and angry insults ("For Tolkien, the Catholic, the Church had the answers, the Church was the source of all truth, so 'Lord of the Rings' does not touch those big deep questions"). He abuses the words "fundamentalism" and "theocracy." In short, he is like a poor man's Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens—a smart and clever man who writes well, but also writes far too much about something he knows far too little about. It would be like me pontificating about how to be a great opera singer or why global warming is a fraud/fact/fantasy.

This past week, Pete Vere had a piece in The Washington Times, titled "Atheism for Kids." He wrote:

Sophia A. Sproule, assistant editor of This Rock magazine, a Catholic monthly based in San Diego, was stunned when she read Mr. Pullman's work for the first time. Miss Sproule, whose master's degree is in English literature, described the author as well-versed in the tradition of British fantasy that began with "Alice in Wonderland," continued with J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" and Mr. Lewis' "Narnia" series and recently gave rise to Mrs. Rowling's much-loved Hogwarts School for Wizards.

"Like his predecessors Lewis Carroll, J.R.R. Tolkien, and C.S. Lewis, Pullman is an Oxonian with a facile command of classical mythology, literary allusion, and inventive nomenclature," said Miss Sproule. "Drawing on a mythos suggested by the works of John Milton and William Blake, he creates a daring, exciting world — or worlds, as it happens — that engage the imagination and the intellect. His sly references to the Narnia books will no doubt spark the recognition of readers, young and old, who have long cherished the children's classic."

Miss Sproule sees "The Golden Compass" and the other books in Mr. Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy as a source of concern for Catholic parents, describing the books' negative portrayal of God and the church as potentially damaging to the spiritual well-being of young readers.

"Pullman, an outspoken atheist and critic of religion, offers in these novels a vitriolic denunciation of religious faith in general, especially of Christianity and most pointedly of the Catholic Church (a version of it, anyway)," Miss Sproule said.

"Whether or not one believes that 'mere fiction' should be cause for alarm, the simple truth is that to enter into a fantasy realm is to accept the world presented on its own terms," she said, adding that the Pullman books represent "not merely a wholesale rejection of religion — it is an invitation to reject God."

Seattle blogger Mark Shea (markshea.blogspot.com), one of the most-quoted Catholic defenders of "Harry Potter," has frequently criticized those who fail to distinguish between the fantasy use of magic in Harry Potter and the occult. Yet he too is concerned with Mr. Pullman's work, as well as its marketing to children.

"Pullman's a zealous atheist, so you get what you pay for," said Mr. Shea. "Unlike Rowling, Pullman is not subtle. He states in interviews that he is writing an anti-Narnia series."

Like much of Mr. Lewis' work, Narnia presents heavily Christian allegorical themes and images. "What Pullman wants to do is proselytize for atheism," said Mr. Shea. "Pullman is writing with an agenda. He's a good writer, what it makes his books even more insidious."

Of particular concern to Mr. Shea is Mr. Pullman's use of children's literature. Most atheists promote their ideas through dry academic treatises, said Mr. Shea, "but the masses don't

Read the entire piece.

Finally, an October 28th piece in the Los Angeles Times reported on some of the controvery surrounding the books and movie. It included this:

Good wrangled author Donna Freitas, an assistant professor of religion at Boston University who, with Jason King, co-wrote "Killing the Impostor God: Philip Pullman's Spiritual Imagination in His Dark Materials," published last month. (Freitas said she wasn't helping market the film, but her book "serendipitously" addressed many of the issues raised by the League's protest, so she obliged the studio's request that she speak with The Times.)

"This is a thrilling, cutting-edge work of Christian theology," said Freitas, who is Catholic. "What's distressing about [League President] Bill Donahue's message is he's talking about 'His Dark Materials' as if it's this atheist manifesto geared at children. He's forgetting this is a wonderful literary fantasy for children. It's a story first."

Which, of course, goes directly to Shea's point: Pullman believes (rightly) that stories are one of the best way to convey ideas and beliefs. His beliefs seem obvious enough, which makes Freitas's remark about the trilogy being "cutting-edge work of Christian theology" all the more strange. But, wait—didn't she say that they are stories first? So it does present a theological vision, yet Donahue (and other critics, I presume) are off base for criticizing its theological content. Clever. On her blog, Freitas, blasts Donahue again:

Donohue rants:

"The trilogy, His Dark Materials, was written to promote atheism and denigrate Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism. The target audience is children and adolescents. Each book becomes progressively more aggressive in its denigration of Christianity and promotion of atheism: The Subtle Knife is more provocative than The Golden Compass and The Amber Spyglass is the most in-your-face assault on Christian sensibilities of the three volumes. Atheism for kids. That is what Philip Pullman sells."

The first question we should be asking Mr. Donohue: has he even read the books? And the next question: how familiar is Mr. Donohue with Catholic theology?

Most of Donohue's argument comes from his belief that "His Dark Materials" is an atheist manifesto--"atheism for kids" as he puts it. Pullman is a well-known atheist. But anyone familiar with even a little theology can see God lurking throughout this wonderful, imaginative adventure. And anyone with a Christian background will find that Pullman's trilogy is rather sparkling with good Christian virtues like the big three--faith, hope, and love--not to mention lessons about justice, temperance, prudence, and courage.

From what I can tell, Donahue, however gruff and hard-nosed his style, is quite familiar with authentic Catholic teaching. And I know for certain that both Sandra Miesel (herself a novelist, as well as medievalist and longtime Catholic journalist) and Pete Vere (a canon lawyer and journalist) know more than a little about Catholic doctrine and moral teaching. However, there is a certain element of truth, I suspect, to the assertion that God is lurking in the trilogy. After all, Pullman's interviews and public statements reveal a man who seems to be running, albeit with a smirk, from the Hound of Heaven, and whose inconsistent world view is consistent with someone who claims to embrace materialism and atheism, yet is constantly talking about spirituality, religion, and theism. So, in a 2000 interview with Capital Times, Pullman said:

But because of my upbringing I'm a Christian atheist, and I'm a church atheist. And I'm very specifically, because I was brought in my grandfather's household and he was a Church of England priest when the old prayer book was used, so I'm a 1662 Book of Common Prayer atheist, a Hymns Ancient and Modern atheist, and King James Bible atheist.

I know the Bible and the hymn book and the prayer book very, very well, and they form a deep and inescapable part of my nature. I don't want to be free of them. I value enormously my past and my background, and the education and upbringing I had is in a very Christian household.

But I find it impossible to believe. However, the corollary of that is that if there is no kingdom of heaven, we must have a republic of heaven. We can't have another king. We mustn't have another king. Worshipping the wrong thing is going to lead to trouble, so we have to have a republic, by which I mean that we ourselves in this world here in the physical universe where we know we live have got to make it as much like the traditional idea of heaven as we can.

“By which I mean it's a place where we're connected to other people by love and joy and delight in the universe and the physical world. And we have to use all the qualities we have -- our imagination, our intelligence, our scientific understanding, our appreciation of art, our love for each other and so on -- we have to work to use those things, to make the world a better place, which it sorely needs making.” [The Capital Times; October 13, 2000 ]

And where, might we ask, does this "love and joy and delight" come from? Can a true atheist/materialist really talk seriously about such things? And if we are to make the world a better place, how shall we go about it? Does materialism offer the means to do so? These are some of the questions I've not seen Pullman address. It is one reason I say his atheism is "childish"; it avoids the tough questions and offers banal and hackneyed criticisms of religion that are disingenuous and misleading (in this regard, he fits in well with the "new atheists"). Fortunately for Pullman, he's a far better author of fiction than he is philosopher or metaphysician. Unfortunately, it seems that many people are willing to take Pullman's public statements as serious and meaningful statements about such matters.

More to come, I'm sure...

• What Kidman should know about Pullman (August 20, 2007)

Comments

[Adrian Monck]

Please. Pullman is public about his atheism, but he is a kids author!

As a thorough-going atheist I hardly approve of CS Lewis's theology (another facile Oxonian, perhaps?), but his books are on my daughter's shelves. She doesn't like Pullman, but then she isn't keen on the Wind in the Willows either (perhaps it's the facile classical allusions in Piper at the Gates of Dawn).

My children sing hymns, attend services, and receive religious instruction. I'd rather they got more maths classes, but there you go.

Atheism is not a faith, or a church. Its adherents have no Nicean Creed. Godlessness has been appropriated by communists and nihilists, Buddhists and classical thinkers.

In a hundred years or so we'll both find out who was right! Except, as an atheist, I don't get to look smug.

[Stephen Sparrow]

"Atheism is not a faith"??
Come now Adrian - so Atheism is science? Atheism is capable of being proved? I number among my friends only two authentic atheists. Both are academics and both admit their viewpoint is a faith. I think you should reclassify yourself as an agnostic.

"In a hundred years or so we'll both find out who was right! Except, as an atheist, I don't get to look smug."

That statement reeks of smugness but I suppose from your point of view Adrian, it's better to be smug now than nothing later.

[Carl Olson]

Please. Pullman is public about his atheism, but he is a kids author!

Then why is Pullman constantly asked to give talks and interviews that touch heavily on his atheism and his dislike for "organized Christianity"? It's like saying, "Hey, Stalin was just a politician!" or "Carl Sagan was just an astronomer!" Not good enough. Besides, does anyone really think that Pullman would be the darling of the cultural elites if he was overly Christian and was as damning of atheism as he is of theism?

[Tom Gilson]

The Scholastic publishing company is partnering with New Line Cinema and promoting "The Compass," and the books, heavily in public schools. Even though the books are strongly anti-God and anti-church, they're getting a strong push in schools as curriculum resources. There is more information here. No matter how you view the use of free speech, this seems inappropriate for schools, and I strongly suggest you encourage your local schools not to use this material.

[MMajor Fan]

While Tolkien was not heavy handed in the deep theology or Catholic analogies in his trilogy, many people do not know what he wrote about how the "happy ending" was not so long lasting. He said that soon after Aragorn dies teenagers start to develop cults and even worship Sauron. I continue to marvel at Tolkien's prescience and understanding of human nature and this is the little known example I often think about. I mention this because there is such a parallel with the current trendy atheist cultism. Not long after a father's generation dies for religious freedom the "liberated youth" seem to define freedom as being rampant disbelief, in the opposite direction from the ancestors. It's almost like today those who most appreciate religion are those who had it denied to them for so long (Communist USSR, China, Vietnam) and who now have a flowering of appreciation for religion after having atheism forced down their throats for so long. The restoration of the Church in Russia, China and Vietnam are vivid examples that the pendulum swings back to faith after a long time of deprivation. They understand real atheism and what it's like because they had to live within the near total destruction of their faith. Today's parlor atheists in general do not know what it is like to actual live within decades of state enforced spiritual aridity. I wonder how they would feel if they lived in a true atheist society where they could not even discuss what parts of the theoretical existence of God they disagree with. It's an aridity that is unnatural to humanity that none but those who actually lived within it can understand. I think that is one reason sci-fi and fantasy have such a pull for atheists because they create a new stage where they would not feel the pain that one feels in reality in genuine real life enforced 100% atheism where there is a total aridity of God.

[LJ]

---"parlor atheists"---

Great expression MMajor Fan. I hope you don't mind if I borrow it on occasion. It has a certain something, like "limousine liberals."

[Jeannine]

I read Pullman's trilogy a number of years ago, when my youngest son was still in grade school. Sandra Miesel's adjective--"Repulsive!"--is right on. My sensations were deepening disgust from book one to book three. I told my son not to read the books; now that he is an adult, it would be his choice, but I didn't want him to read them when he was so young and impressionable. And OF COURSE the public schools would be pushing them!--any stick is good enough to beat religion with, even though those books contain aspects that would normally be off limits.

[wondrouspilgrim]

While I agree in principle with Donahue, I really think he's taking the wrong tack here. He sounds as irascible and oppressive and the books would have children believe we (Catholics) are.

I was at a lecture once given by St. Vincent's College professor Jason King, who suggested essentially that in responding to Pullman's stories we should point out the inherently catholic themes of the novel (the self-sacrificial act of love that is at the center of the story), and by doing so "bless those who curse you".

I don't know that I totally buy his argument, but I think (especially since we're talking about stories here) that there must be a better approach than Donahues reactionary words.

I look forward to your articles!

[MMajor Fan]

LJ :-)
Happy for you to use my spontaneously thought of expression!
So why do we never see Cadillac Catholics? hmmm.

[Melissa]

How about using the His Dark Materials series as a jumping-off point for a discussion about the reputation, history, and depictions of Christianity and the Catholic Church? What if parents read this book alongside their children and used it as an opportunity to talk about these issues, rather than simply barring their children from these ideas entirely? Is that too dangerous?

[Miss VA]

I do think that reading the book alongside your kids gives them the wrong idea, that these books are noteworthy enough for mom to use as a teaching tool. There are many excellent books available to teach our kids the true history of the Catholic Church with all its high and low points without using Pullman's fictional version. As an adult reader of LOTR and TCON to my children and to myself, I judged Pullman's first novel as interesting fantasy, much better writing than Rowling, but gross in imagery and insulting in his abuse of the Catholic truths in which I deeply believe. His repeatedly negative use of the term "Magisterium" became hard to take. I was offended by the interactions of his daemons. There is so much excellent, beautiful literature for our children to read that is mind- and heart-lifting. Why even debate whether our children should read this stuff? Just Say No!

[Lisa]

I agree with not allowing children to read this stuff. You don't have to drink sewer water to know that it's bad for you. This is just literary sewer water.

[Joe Hepperle]

Carl Olson, shame on you. Even though you may be a busy person don't you feel guilty by writing this long opinion piece about Pullman when you haven't even read the book(s)?

You know some people, who know some people, who have read the book and they thought it was horrible? So what? You have violated the first rule of giving reliable opinion. The rule that says you should know what you are talking about before you begin dispensing.

You sure put the embarrassment onto me. I was referred to your piece here by some of my non-church-going friends. These are the same friends to whom I have been prosyletyzing for the last year and a half.

I've been trying to encourage them to come to church with me. Their most frequent responses are that they aren't interested because they have heard bad things about the Church from other people.

So, like a fish I bite the hook. What have you heard? They respond that they have heard that the head of the Church worships Satan (or the alternate version--"IS").
NO! NO! NO! I answer.
They continue by saying they heard that the church worships statues.
NO! NO! NO! I respond.
They continue by saying they have heard that the Bible itself speaks badly of the Church-- That the Bible refers to the Church as the Great Whore of Babylon.
NO! NO! NO! I respond

I have been trying to tell them all along, that if they come to the Church with me they'll see that they have been mislead. I tell them that if they read the scriptures with me, they will see what the revelations are really about (certainly not anything bad about the Church!)

They have continually told me that what they heard, they heard from "reliable" people that they trust so they don't have to come to the Church to see. And neither do they want to study the scripture with me, for the same reason.

Now these friends of mine sent me an email with a link to your article here. They wrote in their email,

"See Joe! Even this guy from this church website says that we don't have to come to your church or read the Bible to get any more truth than we already have. All your talk about getting the truth straight from the source was a bunch of hooey Joe! We'll still be expecting you at the New Years Eve party but don't come spewing your "come to the church and see the truth" crap. We have the truth about your church -- we got it from people we trust and who are reliable."

The rest of the email rants on about their firmly held (mistaken) beliefs about statue worshipping, Satan, etc but I won't paste all that here.

Now what do I do? You've done here what I have told my friends not to do. The actual source is available to you but you've made a conscious decision to ignore the source. You've as much as declared that what your "reliable" friends whom you trust have said can be taken as truth. Wow. What a concept. I don't expect that you'll actually reply to this but if you do, frame it in the sense of what I can tell my non-church-going friends. This has really knocked me down. God will help me get back up, but I feel like I got sucker-punched in the gut.

[Wesley Weber]

I have not read Pullmans books so I offer no comment on the uses to which they may be put but I have read a goodly number of his interviews and tons of opinions. I agree that Pullman is being pursued by the Hound of Heaven and see him as just another one ofus immersed in a materialist culture with our longings for a more spiritual order. In this regard I have found the writings of Eric Voegelin, a political philosopher, very enlightening as to how we got into this trap and how our culture can work its way out. He is very difficult to read at least for a non-philosopher like me so I go to some of his interpreters which are easily found by googling his name.

[Ater Infusco]

your an idiot if you haven't read it don't say anything
don't beleive every essay you read it's just a goddamn book

[Jacky]

I do not understand why Christianity and other religions get to push their religion on others but he cannot do the same with his beliefs? If you have such a problem, don't take your children to see the movie or purchase them the books. Everyone has a freedom of speech. This is America people.