UPDATE: Leithart on the movie.
I’m starting to get the message.
It goes like this: The Golden Compass is a movie that promotes atheism to young people. You need to warn students about this movie.
Don’t let me write another word without saying that I have nothing but respect for those who are concerned about young people. I’ve given my life to ministering to them. I don’t want any of them to become atheists. I don’t want any young Christians to lose their faith.
I recognize that some of those telling me to warn young people actually want me to tell them not to see the movie at all or to ever read the Phillip Pullman novels on which they are based. Sorry, but I can’t endorse that approach.
Others simply don’t want young people to be unaware that the movies may be an extension of Pullman’s stated agenda to use his art to promote atheism in the same way C.S. Lewis used Narnia to promote Christianity. That’s appropriate, or at least should be if, after actually being viewed, the movies prove to be such an extension. If they promote atheism in the same way Star Wars promotes dualism I hope Christians won’t waste too much time picketing out front.
I realize that once Dobson, Behr and Christian radio/television get ahold of the atheism connection in The Golden Compass, there will be the usual dust-up reminiscent of The Last Temptation of Christ and The DaVinci Code. But I have to admit, this episode of “Angry Christians Hate Your Movie!” has the potential to irritate me a lot more. Let me explain why.
Last Temptation and DVC were communicating esoteric, off-center views about Jesus that are popular in certain quarters, and which keep various cable channels percolating with third-rate programing. I never felt any of these things amounted to much of a challenge to Christian belief. In my ministry, I’ve met two young people- two, neither Americans- who had any interest in even talking about these conspiracy theory versions of Jesus. That’s not to say that there isn’t more interest than I gauged. I’m just saying that when all is said and done, you have to be fairly inclined against traditional Christian belief anyway- as these young people were- for these films and their accompanying books to get much traction.
Even the best radical Jesus scholars- like Crossan and Ehrman- don’t buy much of what these films were selling. Once you’ve scratched the surface, you have to be tenacious to stick with this kind of revisionism.
Atheism, on the other hand, is another story. Almost every adolescent who was raised within a church or Christian family knows the temptations of atheism. Strong believers testify to going through intense doubts or long seasons of God’s absence. While the apologists do battle with the atheists, I for one have never heard a good atheistic presentation that didn’t revisit thoughts I’d already had and probably will have again.
Another reason to be concerned is that atheists are having a good year, so to speak. The past half decade has seen a collection of best selling books, the arrival of viable atheist celebrities, an assertive and more confident style of atheist debate and an increasing number of “converts” renouncing Christianity and embracing atheism. Some atheists even have a new name for themselves- “Brights”- that separates them from us regular dim bulbs.
It’s for these very reasons, however, that I want my students to see Golden Compass, read Pullman, hear Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens and generally engage atheism. You aren’t going to hide from atheism in the Christian ghetto. Our children can’t be sheltered. We can’t portray all atheists as kooks and weirdos. The “village atheist” isn’t the freak show of a Madeline Murray O’Hare anymore.
I frequently tell my students that I would much prefer they embrace any position honestly than pretend to believe something they don’t really believe at all. Yes, I’d rather have an atheist than a phony Christian. Any day of the week.
I especially want my students to hear the atheist case laid out. This week, my advanced Bible class has been watching the atheistic opening statements in two debates between Christians and atheists. I want my students to hear Frank Zindler’s juvenile genius level contempt for the Bible as he announces stars can’t fall from the sky. (Lewis said that if you aren’t prepared to read a book for grown ups, perhaps you should avoid it completely.) I want them to hear Edward Tabash boldly use the phrase “immoral” when discussing the God he describes as a monster. I want my students to hear atheists say that it’s time for religion to give way to the intelligence and vision of scientists who are going to lead us into the promised land of peace, progress and harmony on planet earth. And I want them to hear all those orgasms over rationality and scary stories about superstition.
You see, I’m firmly in the camp of Chesteron on this one. The more the atheist talks, the more Christianity makes sense to me. When I listen to atheists describe their noble vision of existence in an absurd and meaningless world where their firm and rational grasp on reality can give meaning to all of us who walk the aisle to becoming “Brights,” I’m so grateful for the doctrine of total depravity I could write an entire musical about it.
Atheists are so optimistic about atheism that, frankly, it makes irresistible viewing. “Is he really going to say that religious belief is a mass delusion and a mind virus? Is he actually going to claim that atheists are rational while religious people are weak-minded advocates of faith? YES!! And not the argument from “evolutionary morality.” No way!! Ugh!!! There’s just too much drama. I can barely stand to watch.” I have to listen to Paula White explain that my $70 offering is going to make me $7000 to top some of this stuff.
Lewis put it deftly: Atheism is too simple. If I abandon Christianity, he said, I’ll embrace Buddhism or an eastern religion. Amen. Several times. If there were no meaning, we wouldn’t know there is no meaning.
Atheism has been around for a long time. It’s going be around for a long time to come. It’s going to make more documentaries. It’s going to have more best-sellers. I’m sure it will have its own reality show on MTV. Your kids are going hear from atheist friends, professors and employers. They are going to be a lot less reluctant to portray Christians as a threat to peace and civil society than they were in the past.
You need to get ready for the “new atheism” to become a factor in every facet of our culture. We won’t get ready for that if we protest The Golden Compass or the twenty atheist-friendly Hollywood products that are coming soon to a theater near you.
No, it’s time to love your enemy. (Atheists aren’t the enemy anyway. It’s time we quit falling for every panic monger who wants to tell us that some group wants to “attack the family” or “take away our rights.” It’s not true most of the time, and when it is, Jesus had plenty to say about the blessings of being persecuted.) It’s time to find ways for the light to shine winsomely. It’s time to be a servant for Jesus’ sake. It’s time to give a reason for the hope that is in us. It’s time to turn and face the atheist challenge and not protest, run away or declare war.
Atheism has a powerful appeal when Christians aren’t well taught, honest and engaged. Its message can be potent when you’ve lived like a rabbit instead of a watchman or a witness. Many of the Christians warning us of “Atheists Ahead!” may be afraid their own faith couldn’t survive reading Sam Harris’s book. Atheists make dozens of challenges to Christianity and Christians that are MUCH NEEDED and LONG OVERDUE for consideration in many Christian circles.
If that is the case, then I say buy the atheist nearest you a good dinner, because he/she is doing us all a favor by challenging that house of cards we’re so afraid might get blown over. Remember this: when the atheist finishes making his presentation to my students, they’ve just learned that it makes no difference what they do. It’s all a matter of chemicals hitting the brain anyway, and it goes no deeper. When I finish my presentation, there’s a reason to go to class, to study, to pass, to graduate, to do something with your life and even to continue on with hope if you fail. The atheist says eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. I say remember your creator in the days of your youth, because he will bring all things into judgment.
My talk sounds a lot better when they’ve heard his/hers. Don’t forget that.
The Internet Monk Archives 
Why is it that you must complain about a movie that inferences atheism, while movies like Narnia and The Passion of the Christ can be released without any atheist uproar at all. Its called the cinemas, its fiction and people should see this movie and decide that if they want to believe in god they can, but if they don’t they don’t have to. Its freedom of choice and what you call propaganda, I call an enjoyable film that happens to incorporate religious ideas I believe. I’m sure its the same vice versa, but I don’t complain, because I’m used to people hating me and my religion with no reason. You might not be afraid of me and my ideas, but I’m scared to death of your ideas, because when you believe that your ideas are superior to another religion, your no different than a Nazi, and I don’t want Nazi’s running my country.
LikeLike
amanda peet nude
LikeLike
The room with only a somewhat valerie bertinelli nude decent blowjob. Allow me. Im just.
LikeLike
canada deliver kitchen key watch german car ocean
LikeLike
i would have to say as a theology student and artist that in spite of pullman’s personal views on religion i have found his books actually some of the most beautiful and engaging stories that deal with theological subjects. in fact i found in his books a beauty that is not present in the “children’s books” by people like lewis that are held up by many as “christian” books…his dark materials deals with the greyness of faith and life in such a challenging way.
also as a christian, i have to wonder and ask those who feel like faith can be threatened or destroyed by one book or story if they themselves have a very narrow view of God and are actually living out of a functional atheism (he belief that ultimate responsibility for everything rests with us. This is the unconscious, unexamined conviction that if anything decent is going to happen here, we are the ones who must make it happen – a conviction held even by people who talk a good game about God.~ definition borrowed from parker palmer)
it seems to me as a theologian and believer that the God i have encountered in scripture and life is one who acts in unexpected ways and at times through people who we can’t believe God would choose to work through.
and to the claim that pullman’s work is satanic i personally would be very cautious to make such a statement especially if you haven’t read the stories.
LikeLike
It’s amazing to me that so many people discuss Pullman’s trilogy with reference to atheism. The books are far too spiritual to be regarded as simple atheism. They are concerned, for instance, with the nature of sin. What is sin in an atheistic universe?
Pullman may say he’s a atheist, but whatever his beliefs, you have to look at what he wrote to evaluate its meaning, not at what he says about it.
Pullman has created an anti-Narnia. In the same way that the Narnia books are constructed around a Christian world-view, Pullman’s anti-Narnia trilogy is constructed quite deliberately around a Satanist world-view.
An argument for this is presented at http://geocities.com/goldencompasssatanism
LikeLike
Nicolas: Listen carefully to this distinction please.
Anyone and everyone can be kind.
Atheists have no explanation for why it is better to do X than to do Y. I didn’t say they weren’t kind. I said they had no basis to say universal absolutes like “to be kind is to be human.”
Christians and other theists have a basis on which to make the statement.
I am NOT NOT NOT saying Christians are kind, or kinder, etc. Often they are not. Be we believe all humans are made in God’s image, and that is a basis for the concept of kindness.
Atheism has to borrow the concept for it to have any meaning.
LikeLike
I am offended because of false accusations and generalizations. Are you claiming that people were not kind until Christianity came around? the romans the Greeks the Egyptians the Babylonians the Inca’s? none of these people felt love for their fellow man? How can you take something like being kind and try and turn it into something only religious people have the capability of doing? to me it sounds like you are claiming to be the only people capable of true kindness? which leads me back to my original point of closed-mindedness.
LikeLike
>But how dare you accuse atheists of having no reason to speak of what is moral. It is human to be kind, not a fear of god. if god did exist and i knew i was going to hell for not believing in him, i would still be good and kind in this life.
No one is saying all atheists hate God. Phillip Pullman is hostile to Christianity and CS Lewis. Many Atheists are hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular.
“How dare you…”?
Well….saying it is “human to be kind” is a religious statement and a universal moral statement. I’m really glad you believe it, but as an atheist you have no way to say it is a universal or to imply that anyone else should believe it. It can’t be scientifically verified. (In fact, I think it’s more scientifically verifiable that humans are cruel and violent.) You are making a religious and universal statement with no basis except that it appeals to you. I’m glad, and I would welcome you as my neighbor and my kid’s teacher, etc. But you as far as atheism is concerned, you are standing on thin air with that moral absolute of yours. Atheism has no moral absolutes and can’t even defend why you were offended in the first place.
LikeLike
Hi i spent a while reading all these posts and now i cant even remember how i got onto this site.
I would just like to say some of the views on atheists on this site are very closed minded.I am an atheist, i respect religion and its teachings, not just Christianity, but all religions and i accept them all for their positive teachings and their flaws as well. I DO NOT hate god- or the ideal of god because apparently i cant not hate something that i do not believe in- that one took several readings.
But how dare you accuse atheists of having no reason to speak of what is moral. It is human to be kind, not a fear of god. if god did exist and i knew i was going to hell for not believing in him, i would still be good and kind in this life.
And yes atheists have been around for a long time, before Christianity, and most probably after it, but we are not out to sully gods name, we just want to live by our own beliefs- yes it is a belief that there is no god. If you have the rite to preach one belief then so does everyone else- no one is a higher judge than another. ‘all equal in the eyes of our lord’ something along those lines.
Finally the book. this was one of the first books that sparked my interest in reading, so much in fact that i read it again and again on numerous occasions. It also inspired me to read volumes of other books, which in turn lead me to doing my English literature degree at university. all-in-all a very positive effect on myself.
thank you for your time if you read this post.
LikeLike
I like the way you think.
You are the type of person the I would enjoy having a long talk with.
Although you do have a slight bias on your opinion of atheists in a wide range view.
Generalizing that all atheists have a condescending nature toward others of religious faith is just like claiming that all people with religious faith practice the same patronization.
Everyone has a separate way of expressing their faith or lack there of to others.
Therefore claimi…sorry I began off the original topic and continued.
On the movie and it’s affects,
the reason I was turned on to this subject was that as I poked my curious little head into a professors lecture I heard her announce to the class that they should not see the movie. She then clarified saying that instead they should protest it because they kill god in the end.
This event does not occur until the last of the series and the first book does not have a strong anti-religious tone. Said tone doesn’t begin until the 2nd book and strengthens into the 3rd.
Protesting only causes more static in the community which leads to news stories, internet stories, and other forms of free publicity for the movie. More people are prone to think “ohhh people detest this movie so much that they would protest it? This sounds interesting, I didn’t plan on it before but I’ll go see it now” than ” I should join them.”
To augment this further a large portion of the people who plan to protest or simply tell others that it’s vile and wicked have neither read the novels or seen the movie(obviously) so they have nothing to really go on but hear say. Most of this hear say no doubt being exaggerated to make the movie sound like a video of Satan himself rising and brainwashing children. (I over exaggerate as well)I beg everyone to educate themselves in the subject they are pondering before they form an opinion.
In my personal opinion( not that you should pay any mind to it) These books although they may express the views of the writer are not promoting atheism, they are simply telling a good story. Maybe you are looking too deep, maybe Phillip just likes to write books haha.
In the end controversy makes a good story just that much better.
I do not have time for commentary on the rest of this but I wish I did. Thank you for a little brain stimulation and I’m sorry if I repeated anything that was already said I didn’t read the other responses.
LikeLike
rr writes:
“If I was an atheist, I wouldn’t care a bit about morality.”
That you are of particularly low character is not an argument for or against anything.
LikeLike
I realize that once Dobson, Behr and Christian radio/television get ahold of the atheism connection in The Golden Compass, there will be the usual dust-up reminiscent of The Last Temptation of Christ and The DaVinci Code. — Internet Monk
It’s already happening. Both YahooGroups I’m on blew up last week over The Golden Compass movie.
It’s “Get on This Bus or We’ll Run You Over.”
LikeLike
A solid post. We’ve got to be able to listen and engage. Richard Dawkins is one of the folks who first came up with the idea of memetics…ideas that have purchase and act almost as self-replicating organisms. Atheism is just such a meme…but it pales in comparison to faith. If we fairly and gently engage with atheists, we’ll find that the great themes of our Christian faith are substantially more compelling. Shoot, even being Raelian would be preferable to the sad mechanistic meaninglessness of this new strain.
I’ve made exactly this point in my own bloggery at:
duelingwithatheism.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the great thoughts!
LikeLike
Am I a “rabbit or a watchman” : that image is going to stick with me.
Thanks for an amazing post that spells it all out. I left the Church as a teenager and when I returned in middle age, it was with more devotion and insight than I could ever have found by living with my hands over my ears or eyes.
I don’t want to lead my children into Christianity with blinkers on, like beasts; I want them to look all around them with open eyes and open hearts and still turn to embrace God. What would that embrace be worth if intellectually, spiritually and emotionally, they were given no choice?
Thanks, again–
LikeLike
Two responses (and my apologies, Michael, if I’m using your blog in a way you’d rather I didn’t) —
weemaryanne: Threatening atheists with hellfire is an all-too-common Christian response, and just as graceless as accusing Christians of stupidity. I’m fully aware that theists can be obnoxious. I believe when they behave that way it’s a sign they believe in God rather than know God. Those of us who know God can’t behave that way for very long without God calling us on our bad behavior.
I didn’t accuse atheist writers of being graceless; it was actually a blanket statement made about any and every atheist. Probably a bit unfair, since I can’t claim to know for certain that there is no such thing as a kind atheist. I can only believe there is no such thing, and make lots of logical arguments to prove it; and when you try to offer evidence to the contrary I can simply fall back on my original assumption: “Atheists are rude. Period.” But I don’t wish to be closed-minded about it. Possibly you’re right. It’s just that every time I see atheists debate Christians, or debate an atheist myself, their disdain comes out.
Ray: I don’t mind you spelling out YHVH. I don’t think He minds either. Again, I’m not superstitious. I’ll try to answer your questions briefly.
(1) Yes. His behavior and statements are consistent with the historic Christian understanding of God; and since I’m not the only one who hears Him, I can compare experiences with other Christians.
(2) I never took Statistics. I do know that when you get too many coincidences on top of one another, it’s no coincidence. When I or others are given information we shouldn’t know, it’s pretty convincing proof. Besides which, God doesn’t tell me stuff I want to hear; He frequently tells me stuff I don’t want to hear. He’s correcting me, you see. He’s making me behave. Thor was never much interested in morality.
(3) To be fair, I don’t know whether Thor inspired anyone to write anything; like you, I don’t believe in Thor, and don’t worry about him. If he were real I expect he would have pitched a fit about the Christianization of Scandinavia and fought it harder. My belief in God has to do with God’s actions, and I can’t say I’ve experienced any of Thor’s.
(4) I don’t believe in spontaneous remission of diseases; I believe in cause and effect. “Spontaneous remission” is another way of saying “I don’t know why this happened.” Maybe an immune system rallied; maybe a cure was effected; maybe the disease mutated into something that couldn’t spread further; I have no idea and neither do the doctors. I think it’s reasonable to believe that if a disease disappears instantly it’s due to some outside agency, and if it wasn’t the doctor or the white blood cells that leaves God. Unless one rejects a belief in God, in which case one is stuck with a blind faith in “spontaneity.”
(5) Thor actually taught nothing. Thorism is not a philosophical religion, but religious feudalism: “Thor is mighty. Worship Thor or Thor will strike you down,” bundled with stories of Thor’s strength. If you’re familiar with the bible, you’ll note God didn’t smite anyone unless their behavior was destroying others, and much more often than not He forgave. (It looks like there’s a lot of smiting because the 50-, 100-, and 400-year intervals between smitings aren’t so well catalogued. The bible, unfortunately, doesn’t spend a lot of time chronicling when people behaved themselves. Great literature is borne of conflict, you’ll remember.) You’ll also note that God has little to do with the weather (except to stop it, as Jesus did a few times). A lot of the misconceptions about God have to do with mixing pagan views of God with Christian ones, and like I said, I don’t believe in that god either.
LikeLike
Re: your 5 reasons for not believing in Thor. Allow me to confirm that those 5 reasons are perfectly applicable to my non-belief in Y-VH (see, I even respect your feelings about that name).
I accept that you believe you’ve had these experiences, but allow me further indulgence:
1) Have you actually heard a god’s voice in your head, and if so, how do you know his or her identity?
2) I’ll accept your story for a moment, but how do you know that wasn’t Thor? And to question your story for a moment, how well do you understand the statistics of coincidence?
3) Again, how do you know that? Maybe it was Y-VH, maybe it was Thor, maybe those prophets were motivated to lie for some reason, or perhaps they were just delusional and/or speaking from logical observations about the world as though they were inspired. I’m not saying any of those things are true, just curious how you know.
4) I repeat my questions for #2, and add a question about the statistics of spontaneous remission of diseases.
5) Do you even know the teachings of Thor? If not, certainly it’s practical not to anger the gods, and him in particular… why… you might get hit by lightning! Haven’t you heard his wrath every time a thunderstorm comes through? There are a lot of sinners out there, and almost no one believes in him any more… that’d sure annoy me if I were a god. Why, I might even be motivated to strike down dozens or even hundreds of people a year for their insolence. Of course, if I had any mercy or kindness in me at all I wouldn’t strike down millions a year even if they were all guilty… so the statistics of death by lightning seem perfectly reasonable to me. Or, at least, more reasonable than concluding Y-VH is omnipotent and infinitely merciful.
LikeLike
K.W.: Okay, that’s a fair point about how people identify with their beliefs; however, it doesn’t necessarily hold. This atheist generally laughs when told that atheism is an untenable position. I don’t feel personally attacked or denigrated. Whether this is mostly a difference in attitude, or whether I’m simply more confident in holding a position with evidence to support it, I can’t tell.
I DO feel personally affronted when threatened with some form of punishment, either temporal or spiritual, for having the effrontery to disagree with the majority. I get that a lot and I have no patience with it. Yes, I know that’s not the position you’re taking here; I refer to it for the sake of contrast. Sorry for the digression.
The quality of grace — you accused atheist writers of being graceless. If you’ve heard Daniel Dennett speak (for example), you might wish to revise that opinion. The man is a combination of Everybody’s Favorite Teacher and Everybody’s Favorite Uncle. And in “The God Delusion,” Richard Dawkins writes to his late friend, “Douglas, I miss you,” and you can actually feel a lump in your throat as he adds exactly why he misses him.
However you define grace, it must include this, no?
LikeLike
You forget how closely people identify with their beliefs. If beliefs aren’t considered worthy of respect, how much respect can one have for the person that holds them? One can claim to respect me but not my beliefs, but that claim rings a bit hollow when one mocks me through my beliefs. (“If you were a small child I might indulge your belief…” implies theism is only for children and the mentally deficient, as I must be to hold such ideas. You see?)
The trouble is that the people on this site don’t know me. My claims are only as valid as I am. If you don’t know how valid I am, I can understand a certain degree of skepticism. What I don’t understand is dismissal. Even with those whose posts get completely obnoxious, we must differentiate between the writer and the idea, otherwise we call that an ad hominem logical fallacy. If you knew me, saw my lifestyle, and noticed how my theism was an integral part of it, you might understand it better. But all I am right here is words on a website.
I don’t understand what is meant by “the quality of grace.” I’m just going off the usual dictionary definition of grace. I’m not in the redefinition business. (Nor am I implying anyone else is.)
LikeLike
K.W.: Very well, you’ve experienced something you call god. That’s nice for you, but meaningless to me. If you were a small child then I might indulge your belief (temporarily), but since you’re not then it would be the height, or rather the depth, of condescension to pretend along with you for even a moment.
So you see, I do indeed make a distinction between K.W. the person, who is worthy of respect simply by virtue of being human, and K.W.’s professed beliefs, which are unsupported by any evidence or convincing argument and therefore do not merit such respect.
And just to make myself clear: I do not think that god is wrathful. I do not think that god IS, period.
Finally, I’m still interested to hear your definition of the quality of grace.
LikeLike
Awesome post, Imonk. If Christians start to protest The Golden Compass, it will just produce an IRL equivalent to the Streisand Effect.
LikeLike
Antony Flew’s latest book on ‘there is a God’ is an interesting read from the atheist turn theist camp.
LikeLike
But you see, my belief in God does not stem from a logical basis. It stems from an experiential one.
If I were to reduce my relationship with my U.S. Senator to a logical basis, then of course she doesn’t exist. Most of her policies and practices don’t trickle down to me. Those few that do can be explained away. I don’t deduce her existence logically. Why would I? Should I? …If others tell me she exists, I could choose to believe them or not, and they’ll think me either nuts or overly skeptical if I don’t. And if I ridicule them for believing in any such thing as a Senator, or tried to “enlighten” them by pointing out some logical proofs for the non-existence of my Senator… well, that’s how Christians feel when atheists tear into us.
No, it’s not rude to point out a lack of evidence. But my beef is with the condescending, ridiculing way in which this lack of evidence is presented. Usually with an attitude of, “You silly theist, you’re still living in the Dark Ages; come join us in the Enlightenment, where we believe in science and progress and moving beyond your ridiculous superstitions and blinking fear of a wrathful god.” As if I don’t believe in science and progress, or as if I believed in superstitions and a wrathful God. If that’s what an atheist thinks God is, I can understand rejecting that idea. Myself, I can’t claim to have God figured out so well.
LikeLike
K.W.: Often times in order to point out fallacies in the concept of God, atheists have to argue to believers from the standpoint of God’s existence being true, simply because many believers cannot accept any other world view. It’s not hatred of God (which is a totally meaningless concept to an actual atheist) its simply begging the question of God’s existence in order to show logical weaknesses in a believer’s idea of God.
LikeLike
K.W. Leslie: If I “civilly accept” your point of view, then why would we even be arguing at all? It’s not rude to point out the lack of evidence to support your assertions; there’s nothing uncivil about calling nonsense nonsense. If you don’t like to hear it, that’s your concern, not mine.
LikeLike
No one can believe unless drawn by the Holy Spirit. In short, no one can save me but God. I cannot think my way into salvation through apologetics. Nor can I explain someone into salvation without the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
If it’s impossible to dislike something that’s “not even there,” why is it that any atheist’s subsequent discussion about God automatically consists of condescending ridicule?
ANY atheist. Even the nice ones. None of them are willing to civilly accept the theist’s point of view simply for the sake of argument. All of them have to start bashing God and those who believe in Him, either overtly or subtly. They may not even be aware they’re doing it, but the animosity is pretty obvious, particularly to those who happen to love God. It’s exactly like you’re picking on my dad.
If it was nothing more than an intellectual affirmation, there wouldn’t be any of this hostility. But there is, so it’s there. Any theist can see it.
As for Ray’s five reasons why I don’t believe in Thor (other than in the comic books) —
1. Thor hasn’t spoken to me, then later confirmed he spoke to me through an unrelated Thor-follower.
2. Thor hasn’t told me something would happen before it happened, and had it come true in great detail. (And no self-fulfilling prophecy either.)
3. Thor hasn’t inspired prophets to tell me anything that uniquely related to my life.
4. Thor hasn’t healed my relatives of illness in a way that doctors can’t adequately explain, and only minutes after my prayers were offered to him.
5. I haven’t found Thor’s teachings, when properly followed, to be eminently practical.
However, all of these things have happened to me with Jesus.
LikeLike
This is a paraphrase of something wiser men than I have said, but it says something important that religious people don’t seem to understand: atheism is nothing more and nothing less than not having a belief in any gods. They hold no personal animosity for your god any more than they have a personal animosity towards invisible pink unicorns.
Christians are almost as atheistic as atheists are… atheists just happen to believe in one fewer god.
There have been tens of thousands of gods people have believed in over the course of human history, and you only believe in one of them.
If you’re interesting in having an open mind, try this experiment: list at least 5 logical reasons why you don’t believe in Thor, the Norse God of Thunder.
I’d be very surprised if an atheist would make a significantly different list for why they don’t believe in the god of the Abrahamic tradition.
LikeLike
K.W. Leslie: Pardon me, but your comment is enough to make a cat laugh. Atheists don’t have any “personal animosity towards god.” They don’t believe in any god to begin with. It’s impossible to dislike something that’s not even there.
And I think you’ll need to define what you mean by “grace” before accusing someone like, say, Daniel Dennet of lacking same.
LikeLike
iMonk:
The actions of criminals and the mentally ill- in this case one raving murderer- represents evangelicals? Saying evangelicals want to kill homosexuals is simply beyond ridiculous. I generally appreciate your viewpoint, but these reasons are simply “gotchas†from a leftist political perspective. They have nothing to do with evangelicals “causing†atheists. Anyone who chooses their God based on global warming is in a unique category.
——–
Hey, I’m an evangelical and I think mentally ill people killing in the name of God is not exactly representative of what I think either.
But what I am trying to put forward is the fact that these sorts of events – violence through direct action (bashing homosexuals), violence through supporting horrible foreign policy (Iraq) and violence through opposing science (the millions who might die because of inaction on global warming) – is all evidence to the atheist that religions cause human suffering.
That’s the logic of my argument here Michael. I’m not defending atheists, but I am trying to point out that atheism and secularism is getting more respect because of evangelical stupidity.
And who do atheists and secularists now see as the defining faces of modern evangelicalism? Fred Phelps, James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Joel Osteen. I rest my case.
LikeLike
Not for the blog but…Carl from CitiChurch has been removed from Youtube. 😦
Too many visitors from BHT pointing and laughing, I guess.
LikeLike
Michael – I read your essay and I appreciated it. I wasn’t disagreeing too much…just asking what the heck is wrong with sharing info about the hidden agenda of this movie?
I’ve received several “warnings” about this movie, which were unnecessary because I was familiar with the book series. I guess my circle is less hysterical than some because none said or even inferred I was a bad Christian if I failed to boycott. They were all in the vein of “a friendly warning” with information “I might want to know”. (direct quotes).
The boycott, BTW, has been called by the Catholic League who probably don’t think of themselves as “Dobson paid culture cops”.
“I don’t think this web site is considerably less a bandwagon than you’ve described.” I’m afraid I couldn’t figure out what you meant by this but I THINK you’re saying that I believe this web site is a bandwagon. What I was trying to say was that ya’ll are very good at pointing out the “jump-on-the-bandwagon” tendencies of evangelicals
…but was wondering if somethings are dismissed as “jumping” before they should be.
Let me close by saying I couldn’t agree more that atheists often seal their doom when allowed to fully express their…can’t say beliefs, can I? But here’s the difference: Dawkins, Hitchens, and company are not hiding their ideas in a dazzling CGI driven movie marketed to 6-13 year olds. You said: “It’s time to turn and face the atheist challenge and not protest, run away or declare war.
Atheism has a powerful appeal when Christians aren’t well taught, honest and engaged.” Yep…but I confess that my 7 and 11 yos, though excellently taught, still lack the spiritual maturity to discern subtle untruths, especially when masked by engaging plots, appealing characters, and clever writing (my teens and college-age daughter can have at it). And isn’t that true of most children that age? And isn’t *that* why the “concerned” Christians are concerned? The ages this movie is geared to and the subtleness of the propaganda? Why would I want to reward someone financially who has only contempt for me?
Tamara
LikeLike
Wonderful post. Came across a typical atheist today at the following: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/columns/article/50247/godless/ I commented on it as well. Atheists are predictable in the extreme. They are completely incapable of seeing in themselves the very traits they condemn in the religious. In fact there are few religious folks that can hold a candle to them in terms of arrogance and their smug certitude.
I usually tell my kids or others who are struggling with their faith (which always seems to go back to the very difficult problem of evil and suffering) that if you get rid of God what does that really buy you. It only makes your despair utterly meaningless.
LikeLike
“1) Evangelicals are killing homosexuals? What? Where? When?”
My guess is he’s talking about the Matthew Sheppard case. Although, to be honest, there have been so many similar events (a la Brandon Teena) that it’s hard to be sure.
When you have people like Reverend Fred Phelps on your side it’s hard to claim a clean image.
“2) Atheism is all about evangelicals who have extreme right wing foreign policy? What?”
He’s saying that the modern atheist movement is a reaction to the ultra-right wing Christian movement in government right now. Some folks are taking the “Bush is wrong” stance point by point and since he claims to be a man of faith they take a faithless stance since it’s the opposite of Bush.
I’d argue that Bush isn’t really a man of faith. He claims to be because he feels that will strengthen his support, but nothing in his actual actions indicate that he’s a faithful person.
There was an article not too long ago where someone said that Bush claimed evangelicals were “useful idiots”.
http://newsblaze.com/story/20061016225150nnnn.nb/topstory.html
LikeLike
You showed such promise up to this point…
“The more the atheist talks, the more Christianity makes sense to me. When I listen to atheists describe their noble vision of existence in an absurd and meaningless world where their firm and rational grasp on reality can give meaning to all of us who walk the aisle to becoming “Brights,—
You couldn’t resist painting all atheists with the broad brush of hate-filled bigotry. I would never refer to Christians in that manner, as if “the christian” of my imagination represented all Christians, the way Hitler referred to the entire Jewish population as “the jew”.
I you really want to be a Christian, you need to take some time out for reflection and examine your true motives for writing in this way. You are further from being saved than you think.
LikeLike
I’m an atheist and I’ve read the Pullman books. I’m interested in seeing the movie mostly because it’s got giant armored CGI talking polar bears! Let’s be honest, who wouldn’t want to see that?
My beef with the complainers, and this goes to the people who complained about the Last Temptation of Christ and the Da Vinci Code as well, is that virtually all of them are complaining about what they THINK the film is like rather than what it’s actually like.
The Last Temptation of Christ is a very faith affirming movie. The bit people complained about was a dream sequence that happened when Christ was on the cross. He was tempted by Satan to give up his role, come down and survive and lead a normal, happy family life. Christ ends up turning his back on this Last Temptation and assumes the role of savior.
What kind of Christian would ignore that message? Well, one who hasn’t seen the movie, obviously.
Around the same time there was a great uproar in the Muslim world over Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses”. The parallels were striking, everyone was upset over something, they didn’t know what because they hadn’t actually read it themselves, oh and it also turned out to be a dream sequence.
Somewhere there’s a thesis in those two events for someone.
But anyway, I digress, I’ll judge the Golden Compass once it’s out and I’ve seen it. Not before. For the record the real anti-God message doesn’t begin until the 2nd book and then it gets really strong in the 3rd.
LikeLike
I am curious how we went from a question of secular movies reflecting current culture to the idea behind all zealous Christians being axe murders. Sounds like someone is living on planet Pluto.
You’ve never been on a blog, Internet chat room, old UseNet newsgroup, and/or listened to Art Bell open up the phone lines at 3 AM, have you? Never mind planet; I don’t know what GALAXY most of the results of those are living on!
LikeLike
I’m a college librarian and teach courses which include units on censorship. When will people learn that attempting to censor something only provides free publicity and makes more people eager to read or see whatever is under attack?
Ever since Last Temptation of Christ, “Let’s Piss Off The Xians” has been a lucrative publicity strategy. Just like the Tara Foundation’s regular “Lord Matriyah” announcements years ago, pushing the button of Christian Culture War Activists is a guarantee of self-sustaining free publicity. You don’t even need to pay the Fred Phelpses anything; just provide the stimulus to wind them up and then just let them go.
Over a year ago, my writing partner (a burned-out soon-to-be ex-Pastor) got in a lot of trouble with the Church Ladies when he joked in his LiveJournal that he was available to provide publicity for authors by putting on his Reverend hat, publicly denouncing your book, and calling for a boycott. (Being contrary, I recommended he make the offer for real and charge for services rendered; he has a wife and three kids to support on what’s effectively minimum wage.)
LikeLike
Great post! But who says we’re afraid of the atheists? I just don’t see the point in giving them my cash, or funding their projects with the dollars of believers. Acquaint yourself with these books and movies for sure – but there are plenty of ways to do that without supporting the movie commercially at the box office!
LikeLike
I agree with the substance of this post, but I find the equating of The Last Temptation of Christ with The Da Vinci Code rather bizarre. Most of the discussion seems on point about DVC, but what “off-center views about Jesus that are popular in certain quarters” was Last Temptation communicating?
Last Temptation takes as its centerpiece the temptations presented by Satan to Christ. This is hardly outre. Milton did the same thing in Paradise Regained. Milton focused on the forty days in the desert, while Last Temptation focuses on the temptation for Christ to save himself: “If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.”
The Last Temptation expands on this, showing Jesus being tempted with an extended vision of the promise of living a normal life: marrying and having children and growing old. He rejects Satan’s temptation, and the movie ends.
What is off-center about this? The controversy at the time seemed to be centered around a brief scene from the vision that made clear where those hypothetical children would come from. This was just childish. There also seemed to be an idea that it is wrong to suggest that Jesus would be tempted. I assumed at the time that these people were wholly unfamiliar with scripture.
My brother has a story about the midwest town where he lived at the time. The local Baptists had organized a picket of the theater, but in a spate of intellectual honesty the minister thought he should actually see the film they were protesting. He came out of the theater and told the picketers to put down their signs and that they should all go see the film.
Myself, I thought it would have benefited from a bit more enthusiastic editing. It could have lost a good twenty minutes without suffering any damage.
LikeLike
OSO, as long as we’re citing anecdotal evidence:
In 1977, during the era of oil crisis, mideast troubles, stagflation, “Late Great Planet Earth”, etc.), I heard several signs-of-the-end-times sermons that discussed global warming and loss of the ozone layer. At the time, the speakers figured it would begin to show up in 10-20 years. (They did not forecast variables such as the improvements in efficiency and emissions controls, nor the increased industrialization of the Pacific Rim.)
All this predated the rise in evangelical political influence, so the sermons called for end-times evangelistic fervor more than a “green” environmental policy. Nonetheless, it was my experience that fundamentalist evangelicals discussed the potential of global warming decades before it was on the radar screen of the secular media.
I was 15 years old at the time, and I remember going home and telling my 50-something atheist neighbor about global warming, and he laughed, “oh, I’m sure old mother earth is much sturdier than you think.”
LikeLike
Tamara:
I’m not going to quote an essay that is there to read. I’ve already said in this comment thread that stating the agenda of Pullman is appropriate. I never said it was unreasonable to know what’s in a movie.
If one Christian wants to see or read something and another Christian doesn’t thats perfectly great. But when the Dobson paid culture cops tell us that we all must boycott in order to be good Christians I simply disagree.
I don’t think this web site is considerably less a bandwagon than you’ve described.
LikeLike
The reason I’m not a-scared of atheism is because it ultimately it’s an emotional decision, based on personal animosity towards God, backed up with logic only after the philosophy has been embraced.
Kind of like Christianity is an emotional decision, based on the kindness of God that leads us to repentance, backed up with apologetics only after Jesus has been accepted. People who truly love God won’t be easily swayed to the wrong direction, even if they watch a convincing movie or read a convincing book.
As for the fence-sitters, they’ll just remain on the fence until something about God attracts them enough to become Christians, or annoys them enough to become atheists. It won’t be a movie. I don’t think the public is dumb enough to think a movie represents real life. The only people who still refer to the ideas in the The Da Vinci Code are the same Gnostics and conspiracy theorists who would believe such stuff anyway.
Love the post, by the way. Keep showing atheists to those kids. Nothing will turn them off to the philosophy more than the lack of grace in its practitioners.
LikeLike
I am curious how we went from a question of secular movies reflecting current culture to the idea behind all zealous Christians being axe murders. Sounds like someone is living on planet Pluto.
LikeLike
Ok – so I understand that cries of “boycott” sound hysterical. But what in the world is wrong with Christians saying “here is an author who is outspoken in his anti-Christian beliefs and believes that I am a mind-less idiot following a fantasy God. I, therefore, choose not to support or reward him with my dollars?”
And what is wrong with informing other Christian parents that what looks like a benign Christmas vacation fantasy is actually the work of an outspoken atheist with a very clear agenda (to do for atheism what C.S. Lewis did for Christianity)?
Why is the “extremely moral” and “impressive” Pullman whose villains are “rich and rewarding” seen as the reasonable party here while those who object to his agenda being hidden in a children’s fantasy movie are unreasonable?
Let me add – I’m not “afraid” of atheists. I homeschool and teach others kids in a co-op setting. We discuss (too much, my kids say) the biases, agendas, world views, and philosophies of politicians, cultural figures, literary figures, and even Joel Osteen . And let’s be honest – most kids (and many adults) do NOT know how to reason critically or recognize fallacy, nor do they have anyone in their lives to guide them.
I love BHT and Internet Monk but I think, at times, the in-family tendency to point out the foibles, legalism, and “jump-on-the-bandwagon” inclinations of some evangelicals causes Michael and others to dismiss some legitimate concerns as “panic-driven”.
LikeLike
Yep. Uh-huh. Thanks for the post!
LikeLike
Well put!
LikeLike
LIONS, TIGERS AND BEARS! OH MY!!!
Seriously. Is God as upset about this movie as some in the Christian community are? Are his feelings hurt? Why do we get upset about these type of movies but not about a movie like American Gangster? Michael, thanks for you great post. I’m not afraid of atheists or their movies either.
BOO!!! (you scaredy-cats)
LikeLike
iMonk–great post, both in content and writing. Thanks.
In a related anecdote, I have received the panicked “Boycott this movie!” email from my pastor and several members of my church.
The thing is, I haven’t been there for weeks. I’ve been going through some stuff and it has kept me from worshiping at all.
My 18-year-old son, who used to be involved in everything the church offered, hasn’t been there in months. He’s going through his own stuff.
Not one person has noticed our absence. Apparently forwarding hyped email messages are much more important than actually reaching out and asking, “Hey, what’s going on with you guys?”
This is Dobson-promoted Christianity at its best. Sound and fury over whatever cause is currently arousing his outrage, but no love.
LikeLike
OSO:
The actions of criminals and the mentally ill- in this case one raving murderer- represents evangelicals? Saying evangelicals want to kill homosexuals is simply beyond ridiculous. I generally appreciate your viewpoint, but these reasons are simply “gotchas” from a leftist political perspective. They have nothing to do with evangelicals “causing” atheists. Anyone who chooses their God based on global warming is in a unique category.
LikeLike
2) Atheism is all about evangelicals who have extreme right wing foreign policy? What?
———-
No. But atheists see both the result of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq as a result of religion.
———-
3) We all have to accept someone’s view of global warming? What?
———-
I need to point out that the largest subgroup in the world who casts doubt on anthropogenic global warming are American Evangelicals.
Meanwhile, 71% of Americans believe in it:
http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm
Evangelicals are too busy believing that there is a debate about global warming – and thus being conned by the right wing noise machine – rather than realising that 99.99% of climatologists (the sort of scientists who actually study climate) believe in anthropogenic global warming.
For atheists, therefore, evangelicals are so anti-intellectual, anti-science and so easily led that they conclude that it is religion that causes this.
———-
5) My Aussie friend, you are sounding pretty hysterically biased on this post.
———-
All I know is that evangelicals are on the nose in America. Many will turn to atheism because American evangelicals have embraced ignorance. We’re moving away from a historical period of “magical thinking” and moving into a more “scientific thinking” one. A Neo-modernist period if you like. People have seen the result of too many unperformed miracles, too many gut-feelings that led to disaster and too many con-men. They’re going to demand that future decisions be based upon rationality and science – and this, in turn, will encourage unbelief and atheism.
Here’s a comic strip that will epxlain to you how many secularists feel today about American evangelicals and their adherence to conservative political ideology:
http://www.irreligion.org/2007/10/20/norway-theyre-all-going-to-hell/
LikeLike
http://www.topekadiy.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8
July 15, 2007, 12:34AM
Murder suspect says he was doing God’s work
Cypress man is being held in the June death of flight attendant
A Cypress man charged in the death of a Southwest Airlines flight attendant said Saturday that he was doing God’s work when he went to a Montrose-area bar last month, hunting for a gay man to kill.
“I believe I’m Elijah, called by God to be a prophet,” said 26-year-old Terry Mark Mangum, charged with murder June 11. ” … I believe with all my heart that I was doing the right thing.”
Interviewed in the Brazoria County Jail Saturday morning, Mangum said he feels no remorse for killing 46-year-old Kenneth Cummings Jr., whom relatives described as a “loving” son who never forgot a holiday and a devoted uncle who had set up college funds for his niece and nephew. He worked at Southwest for 24 years.
Mangum, who described himself as “definitely not a homosexual,” said God called on him to “carry out a code of retribution” by killing a gay man because “sexual perversion” is the “worst sin.”
Mangum believed Cummings to be gay.
“I planned on sending him to hell,” he said.
———
Whether you like it or not, Atheists see this as a result of religion.
LikeLike
Michael,
I just wanted to say that I found your article refreshing and encouraging, as too often I see knee-jerk reactions from Evangelicals. I was raised in a Baptist home and was a Christian at one point, so I know this first hand. In the name of full disclosure, I am an atheist, but I definitely can agree that characterizing us as the “enemy” is not helping the debate any. Thanks for trying to find the middle ground, where we can have a healthy debate and not fall into the “us vs. them” paradigm.
LikeLike
Charles Finney once said “I cannot believe that a person who has ever known the love of God can ever relish a secular novel…Let me visit your…books. What is here? Byron, Scott, Shakespeare and a host of triflers and blasphemers of God.”
This past week I pulled out an old copy of Hardy’s The Mayor of Casterbridge to read. Bitter Hardy lost faith in God. His novels bespeak a universe without him. Funny thing is, he is always referring to some biblical event, character or motif. He just couldn’t escape the revelation of the one he was trying to kill off.
Anyway, sometimes I feel spiritually uplifted when I read art produced from a heart that doesn’t know God. It is painfully honest on the human condition, and reminds me why I am a believer.
If this is a true principle, these films are nothing to worry about.
I hope the ghost of Charles Finney doesn’t start agitating among Christians over this thing. Let it pass. Forget about it. If you don’t want to see the movie, you can always pull out a good old Hardy Novel. Better yet, get an Ingmar Bergman flick. Not that is a spiritual tonic!
LikeLike
Michael,
Amen and well said! I think I’ll be linking to this post from my blog.
God’s Glory,
Lew
The Pursuit Online Store
LikeLike
>Personally, I can’t blame people for questioning the Christian faith when its American proponents are killing homosexuals, declaring jihad against Hugo Chavez, still thinking that Iraq had WMDs that were secretly sent to Syria, still believing that Saddam had some link to 9/11, seeing the cluster-bombing of Iraqi children as reasonable, arguing that there is some “debate†over global warming and that its proponents are secretly trying to return the world to Marxism, and on and on and on.
1) Evangelicals are killing homosexuals? What? Where? When?
2) Atheism is all about evangelicals who have extreme right wing foreign policy? What?
3) We all have to accept someone’s view of global warming? What?
4) What does any of this have to do with atheism?
5) My Aussie friend, you are sounding pretty hysterically biased on this post.
LikeLike
The rise of atheism in America will continue so long as Evangelical Christians keep screaming about “enemies” that we need to fight against.
Personally, I can’t blame people for questioning the Christian faith when its American proponents are killing homosexuals, declaring jihad against Hugo Chavez, still thinking that Iraq had WMDs that were secretly sent to Syria, still believing that Saddam had some link to 9/11, seeing the cluster-bombing of Iraqi children as reasonable, arguing that there is some “debate” over global warming and that its proponents are secretly trying to return the world to Marxism, and on and on and on.
Secularists are gaining ground not because they are smart, but because Evangelicals have become so reactionary and ignorant and foolish that they have managed to shoot themselves in the foot. Evangelicals in the US no longer have any credibility.
LikeLike
Transparent honesty and treating kids like rational human beings are always the best policies. Don’t tell just them “what,” show them “why.” Great post.
LikeLike
I am glad that somebody with influence has taken this position. More often than not, these panic buttons of the religious turn out to be much ado about nothing. I don’t know if I will see the movie or read the books, but I will certainly not take interest with any believers who do so.
LikeLike
People that often oppose our viewpoints as Christians help us become more reformed. The reformation helps us glorify God’s purpose. Without protest we do not examine ourself enough. Without self examination, we tend to start thinking that we are important and become less and less humble, eventually becoming an obnoxious Christian. So bring it on, all challengers, so that we can learn more about God, less of our own importance, and most of all the how to … in running our race in proper proportion.
LikeLike
I agree Christians should not hide, but to be aware of the anti Christian agenda. My “boycott” of this movie is to show hollywood that this is not a movie I want to spend my money on and that sends a message.
LikeLike
From Steve R, whose comments don’t come through:
I had the privilege of meeting Philip Pullman in Toronto a few weeks ago. At the time I had not read his books (a combination of distaste for the anti religious themes and a general disinterest in young adult fiction). I can not tell you how impressive the man is (both an intellect and as warm human being). I am now 4/5 of the way through the His Dark Materials trilogy and I can not overstate what a fine and powerful work of art it is. His portrait of organized religion is extremely shallow (Roman Catholics are right to be offended) but his characters are rich and rewarding (especially the villains) and for a brit. He is refreshing free of anti Americanism. Frankly he is at lest as good a writer as Tolkien and twice as good a novelist as Lewis ever was.
His books are extremely moral and strangely haunted by concepts such as prophecy, Destiny, Honor and self sacrifice. As a challenge to my Christian faith I would put it at about the same level as the Da Vinci Code (that is not very) I found my recent exposure to Five Point Calvinism to be much more spiritual unsettling. However these are not in my opinion Children books the tone is very dark the sense of death and betrayal at times threatens over whelm the novels. As a result I would not recommend them to any but the most mature middle school student.
Read the books and see the film for there own sake and you might find a delicious irony in that just as William Blake felt that Milton was of “The Devil’s party without knowing it†Pullman might be on the side of the angels after all.
LikeLike
You are so awesome.
What you keep reminding me is that God is above all this petty crap. He is all powerful, while I keep thinking I have to make the list of rules, keep them, and guard the gate.
Go, Michael. Keep shaking me up and making me think.
LikeLike
Great Post. I’ve never been afraid of atheists and their arguments. I fear the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom.
LikeLike
“It ain’t necessarily so” is sung by the character Sportin’ Life in Porgy and Bess. It’s not from West Side Story.
LikeLike
As a longtime reader of BHT, (and linked here from there), i find myself agreeing with imonk on this one. I got to thinking, however, about the nature of movies. Movies usually do not attempt to engage the viewer on an intellectual level, but rather immerse the viewer in an emotional appeal. How many movies have you walked out of at the end, and disagreed with the director about who the “good guy” was? You may have been rooting for a bad guy, but it was still the guy the movie had been created to have you root for. Still don’t agree? How many people rooted for Joker in Batman? For Sauron in LOTR? For the cops in Gone in 60 Seconds? So how many Christians, who have a logical answer for atheism, will come out of this movie (series?) rooting for the kids who kill God? As long as you’re aware of the authors/directors intent you can counter the logical arguments. But the emotional appeal the movie makes is much more insidious.
All that said, i will probably watch the movie. I have not really struggled with doubts about God’s existence. I struggle with plenty of other stuff (such as his love for me) but not his general existence. So i agree that engaging atheism, not boycott of the movie, is the answer. But i caution that logic is not the only weapon being wielded by enemies of God. (maybe because truth is ultimately not theirs?)
LikeLike
Out of the park, baby.
LikeLike
I wasn’t referring to the atheist agenda as a whole when I said you were being dismissive of the agenda.
You seemed to be dismissive of PULLMAN’S atheistic agenda when dismissing concerns about the movie.
Pullman has been very open that the agenda of the movie is to get kids into his books. What may be toned down in the movie is blatant in his books.
I have no wish to see boycotts or anything else that will make us look silly over this.
Surely a pastor should make his flock aware of the potential issues, and be prepared to discuss those intelligently. No silliness. No DaVinci Code style panic. Just a calm. ” This is who Pullman is. These are his stated goals. This is the book series the movie is based on. Here are the potential issues.”
I agreed with everthing else you said though and wish we had more of your type around.
LikeLike
I’m a college librarian and teach courses which include units on censorship. When will people learn that attempting to censor something only provides free publicity and makes more people eager to read or see whatever is under attack? If someone dislikes a book or a movie, ignoring it is usually the most powerful protest that a person can make.
I’m one of those Christians struggling with doubts. Refusing to read what the “other side” has to say out of a fear that it will only feed my doubts isn’t working. I just keep thinking, “Maybe they really know something I don’t. Maybe they really have evidence there is no God.” So far, every time I’ve risked enough to read atheist literature, I’ve come away thinking “Their arguments are weak.” Why do we act like atheists or their ideas might be able to overpower God’s light?
And how can we ever have an intelligent conversation with an atheist if we don’t understand their world view? Atheists aren’t already consigned to hell. They too may accept God if approached in the right way. But Christians whom they can blow off as ignorant almost certainly are not going to be effective.
LikeLike
Ray:
>Others simply don’t want young people to be unaware that the movies may be an extension of Pullman’s stated agenda to use his art to promote atheism in the same way C.S. Lewis used Narnia to promote Christianity. That’s appropriate, or at least should be if, after actually being viewed, the movies prove to be such an extension.
I’m a little taken aback that you believe I am “dismissive” of the atheist agenda. Hardly the point at all.
LikeLike
I agree with almost all you said except your dismissiveness of Pullman’s atheistic agenda.
I agree that a public call for boycott would be counter productive. Still, in an easily googlable fashion, Mr. Pullman has been very open, both about his own atheism, and the agenda of his books and his movie.
Surely you see nothing wrong with Pastors at least warning their flock about Pullman’s agenda( which is about as subtle as Mr. Harris’). After all, a parent that allows a child to read Pullman’s books, and watch his movies is going to have to be prepared to have the enevitable discussions that follow.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to have their children in a school such as yours to pick up the pieces
if they drop the ball.
LikeLike
Awesome post, and very helpful approach that obviously comes from working with youth who have incredible “bull-detectors”. Someone just sent an email out to many in our congregation advocating the boycott approach. I’m sending her your essay. And, Now I’m wishing my congregation had to hear an atheist speak before each of my sermons.
I think your apologetics articles, and how we deal with challenges to the faith would be a great seminar topic by you at Cornerstone.
LikeLike
Michael,
Great post! You make a lot of interesting insights in your post. I agree with you that it doesn’t help to panic or try and shelter young people from these debates.
What really strikes me about this latest crop of atheists is how moralistic they are. Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins are all wrapped up about how “immoral” religion is and how it is “evil.” But they, and atheism as a whole, never can give any logical reason as to why morality exist in a world without God, or why we should care about awful things that happen in the world. It always boils down to subjectivism or question-begging or in Dawkins’ case calling people names who raise the question of why be moral without God. In the end, all their moral posturing against religion is a bunch of hot air. If I was an atheist, I wouldn’t care a bit about morality. There simply isn’t any logical reason to do so without God. As you say, the choice is between eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we may die or remember your creator in the days of your youth.
This latest fade of moralistic atheism is more emotional than it is rational. And as this interesting article indicates, it is pretty pathetic as well:
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_11_05/article.html
Let’s hope it’s just a fade.
rr
LikeLike