h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Interesting (sort of) aside:

Pullman is an atheist and claims that the books put-forward his own atheist views. Yet, from what I can gather, the books depict God, angels and all the rest of it as being *real*.

How does that work, then?

Well I'm an atheist and I love reading fantasy stuff which always portray these thing as real.

Why should one preclude the other?

I think his atheist views come across in the book as simply a serious dislike of the church (to put it mildly ) and religion in general.

>I think his atheist views come across in the book as simply a serious dislike of the church (to put it mildly winkeye ) and religion in general.

There's a difference between a serious dislike of the church and atheism, though. Satanists seriously dislike the church but they're not atheists.

I just think it's odd that a book that's supposed to be some sort of athiest propaganda portrays god, angels and the like as something real.

-There's a difference between a serious dislike of the church and atheism-

Yes. You can hate the Catholic church and still be religious. Ian Paisley.

It's even possible to be a Catholic and hate the Church. It was long ago taken over by a gang of sexual obsessives and sadomasochists whose only interest since has been self preservation. It's the Church's need to control others that rankles Pullman and the rest of us.

By "the church" I meant not only the Catholic church but various non-affiliated (Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian) churches.

-By "the church" I meant not only the Catholic church but various non-affiliated (Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian) churches.-

Oh, then, as Ms Roseannadanna would say, Nevermind.

It's probably just basic tribalism. We hate any group we don't belong to.

One thing I liked about the books' depiction of the church, and 'god', is that it doesn't remove the basic mystery of how we got here. It doesn't say that there is no god, just that the imposter isn't it, and that organised religion is inevitably tainted.

Incidentally, the part where Lyra abolishes/transforms hell is one of the best, and most moving ideas I've ever read, anywhere. The ideas in these books are utterly fabulous.

- the part where Lyra abolishes/transforms hell is one of the best, and most moving ideas I've ever read, anywhere-

Pedro. The use of threats like Hell to control thought has to be the ugliest of human sins. It's interesting to note that, finally, even the Church has officially disavowed it. So maybe there's progress after all.

Beeb article: >Christian journalist Peter Hitchens said that while he opposed a boycott, he wanted parents to be aware of Philip Pullman's themes.
He said: "If you buy this book for your child, don't imagine for a moment that you are handing over a neutral story: this author has a purpose. Don't forget, this is a writer who has previously gone on the record to say he is trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief."<

Neutral? Ah yes, like the Catholic Church's attitude towards the Nazis in WWII.

I liked the books in decreasing amounts - I thought the third one was a mess. Ne'erless I think I'll probably watch the film.

First I'll state I haven't read the books.
As for the question of how an atheist could present a book which takes the existence of god/angels/etc as given and still be from an atheist position - is this not one of the oldest means of taking apart an opposing view? I.e. you accept the ideas presented then explore them to reveal the problems within them thus showing that the original ideas which lead to them do not hold water? You accept that god is real and has whatever attributes then explore that to see where it leads, and if it doesn;t lead where those who propound the ideas say it will lead then there is a problem with what is being presented.

Apols if this is off target and not relevant.

No no, I think you've got it right.

Essentially, I dont believe Pullman wrote three fantastic children's books purely out of a driving need to discredit organised religion. I suspect that it's something he feels rather strongly about though.

Certainly from the books, it's not deities he has a problem with, it's, as was mentioned before, that it must be inherently corrupted, and that anything that is corrupt can not and should not try to control others. And if it does, it should be fought.

Funnily enough, I didnt see the angels as being 'evil' merely as 'other' beings (higher? maybe... But I suspect just 'other' works fine). From the point of view of certain animals, we could be considered 'evil'... If an angel is to a human what a farmer is to a battery hen...

In fact, the most evil person in the books, really, was Mrs. Coulter, because not only was she trying to do to others what she wouldn't allow for herself or her own, but she was AWARE of her feelings, she had plenty of knowledge and refused to see it/use it/ acknowledge it because of a greater need to be Important and Powerful.

I got the impression that Pullman is against anything which denies harmless yet important identifying personal and cultural devices. Individuality. I have to say I agree with him.

I also quite like the form that 'magic' takes in his books... Sort of how I see the universe anyway

I find it quite amusing that a trilogy of books can upset such a huge and well-guarded faction as the catholic church. As I always say with thse things, if the cap fits... And if it doesn't, why are you worried? It's not like it's dangerous to someone's health to be sceptical about unfounded blind faith which can seriously affect one's freedom and individuality and thought... If it were up to 'church'es we wouldnt have surgery, the C section, bllod transfusions etc... they would have outlawed all of it if it were in use and the reasearch if not yet discovered...

The magesterium in the books isn't strictly the Catholic Church. Mentioned in the first bit is that John Calvin becomes Pope and moves the Vatican Council to Geneva. So the Magesterium is based on what-if the Catholic church had been taken over by the most scary Protestents and survived the Reformation with its hold over Europe intact.

>> The magesterium in the books isn't strictly the Catholic Church. <<

Religious Folk In Wrong-End-Of-Stick Paranoia Shock!

RF

I was surprised to learn here, after I read the books, that Pullman was an atheist. One of the essential themes was the quaint religious idea that children are somehow magically innocent and that something profound happens at puberty. Lyra is the agent for multiuniversal change precisely because she isn't aware of what's going on.

so you haven't seen the interviews with him railing on about CS Lewis polluting children's minds with religious clap-trap?

I keep away from all that. I really enjoyed the books, especially when I re-read them recently (in preparation for the film). It's especially nice for an old biddy like me to know that Lord Asriel looks so much like James Bond!

I remember Pullman referring to himself as a "1662 Book of Common Prayer atheist" (see here for more context: http://dedulysses.wordpress.com/2005/12/26/new-yorker-article-on-philip-pullman/ Somewhere on the net you might find the interview in its entirety).

My understanding is that Pullman a) is an atheist (no god, no intelligent design(er), etc), b) is appalled by the crimes committed in the name of organised religion, but c) recognizes and acknowledges that religion, and in his special case, Christianity, has an important influence on people in that it does teach values that Pullman shares - and admits he shares because he was brought up in Christian traditions and contexts.

Basically what he is saying is, take the good parts but let go of all the hatred. In this, he does not attack Christianity, in particular, but all religions that have a history of killing or torturing people in the name of their god(s). Somewhere in the second book there is a passage where an angel says that "god" aka "the Authority" has been given many names, including Yaweh, Allah, God, etc.

Pullman's project is not so much to fight against what for lack of better words I would call spirituality. Angels, witches, "supernatural beings", parallel universes - in Fantasy fiction, all these can exist anyway. In real life, they might exist as well. Within Pullman's cosmos, they are real, but they are not (and this is important), they are NOT manifestations of an Almighty Maker that is to reverred and observed.

SPOILER ALERT
This point is stressed by the end of the trilogy. The imposter (who claimed to be the Almigthy) has been killed off, Hell has been abolished - and nothing changes for the people. Their everyday lives are not at all touched by this. Lyra and Will have been transformed, and there is hope that by knowing that there is nothing to fear about death, people can enjoy life better, but still, PEOPLE (i.e. Lyra and Will) will have to work to establish the "Republic of Heaven" on earth. The existence or non-existence of angels, gods and whatnots does not have any impact on the lives of people. It is in this point that Pullman's atheism comes to full force. Gods may be there, but they are irrelevant.

Y.

*spoiler alert*

It really annoys me that people criticising the books, saying that they are anti-religious, clearly miss one of the most important sentences in the books.

In the middle of the battle, Lyra and Will come across God, who turns out to be a feeble old creature who evokes sympathy. All the evils of religion are carried out in this creatures name, when all God wants to do is die - he isn't capable of doing these things anymore. And then God blows away in a breeze.

In that incident we see, loud and clear, that the evil is being done not by God, but in his name. God isn't bad, but the religions around him can be.

But that is what is so dangerous to the churches... all those organisations based on that NOT being the case!

I think what made me surprised that he was atheist was that I tend to equate the word with strict materialism. Reading this thread makes me realize I was wrong to do that. You can be atheist and still have mystical beliefs. In the books Pullman makes the point that the 'dust' is conscious, the source of consciousness in us. I took this for a religious idea.

It's good to criticize old corrupt religions; I just don't see how it helps to replace them with new ones.

Well its a work of fantasy fiction.

Dust is original Sin, right? And Dust is also self-awareness and loss of 'innocence' and making choices and having to account for the consequences.

So the snake and fruit story for Genesis is no-longer a tale of man's fall from a perfect being to a tainted, evil one, but rather a story of ascent from being just like all the other animals to being something that thinks about itself. Its also a growing-up / coming-of-age story.

So ultimately, for me, His Dark Materials is quite a bit better than a general atheist rant against the church (which, granted, I could also enjoy. Rather, it repeatedly makes the fairly specific point that, in its struggle to uphold goodness in the form of a sort of childlike purity, the church has condemned many good things and thereby caused a lot of suffering.