the golden compass: the truth behind the story

I heard recently that the children's book (soon to be a movie released in theaters), The Golden Compass, was written by an atheist in reaction to C.S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia and with aims at convincing children not to believe in God.

I share Joe's concerns that the evangelical Christian community might be overreacting a bit to the film with a blatant boycott statement. However, I also agree with the community to a degree that parents ought to carefully consider whether or not they will expose their children to a story with such an insidious agenda. (BTW, it doesn't have to be agenda driven! It could be horrific images. For instance, I remember a friend of mine taking his second grade aged boy to see Lord of the Rings: Two Towers, and he was horrified at the images of Gollum!)

Ideally, parents should read the book (or see the movie) first before making a decision, but that is not always practical due to work schedules and the immediacy of the film's release. Therefore, it helps to talk with someone who has read the book and/or seen the movie--someone who you respect and are willing to take their word for it.

For these reasons...

Bruce Hopler, pastor of Cornerstone Church (one of the churches that helped start Metanoia) and also a founding member of the missional network called Ecclesia Network, did the research and wrote an intelligent response to the hype on his blog. I know Bruce personally and have a deep respect for him. You can find it here: The Children's Movie The Golden Compass Is Cause For Great Concern.

Comments

[whipple]

Thanks for the links to the reviews of His Dark Materials. It's interesting that most atheist views, when fully expounded and extended, tend to point towards God rather than away from him. That may be one of his little jokes. I haven't read the series yet, but I intend to (and to see the movie).

I'm betting that Pullman's series is no exception. Unfortunately, the evangelistic gateway to the heart seems rarely to be through the mind...

[Seb]

Sorry for coming to the conversation late, but a question to Whipple: how exactly do you mean "most atheist views, when fully expounded and extended, tend to point towards God rather than away"? I don't quite follow, and am curious about your line of thinking.

(Since this is such a late addendum, feel free to click the link & carry the conversation over to my blog if we don't want to gum up the works here at Adam's.)

[whipple]

Seb~

I feel a little too coldly logical in thinking this way sometimes (kind of like the brain in "A Wrinkle in Time"), but I remember reading both "Mere Christianity" and "Orthodoxy" and feeling this way.
I heard a line on NPR the other day that really encapsulated this concept: "Human beings have a deep sense of justice."
This is only one arm of faith that atheists bear. Where does justice come from? What defines it? Another idea is that, as we live in time, one has no choice to accept that either time began at some point, and will end, or that there is some eternal something out there, which is outside time (or both).

Anyways, the logic goes on from there, but it's a little useless most of the time, since the heart is where people make those decisions, and logic is a poor substitute for the presence of Jesus.

[Seb]

Gotcha. I see where you're coming from. Thank you for the expansion.

I was especially curious since I'm an athiest myself. Don't worry, I'm not here to start trouble (I'm Adam's buddy's brother-in-law) and will only rhapsodise about my belief structure if solicited. But I am always interested in hearing what "the other side" thinks about us.

(On my blog, I actually just posted a piece about analogous philosophies in religion & modern music, which might be helpful. The only caveat: I've got a mouth like a dockhand.)

[adam feldman]

seb~ i guess that makes us step-third cousins four-times-removed...?

seriously, thanks for engaging in the conversation here, whipple & seb. (seb~ never too late to engage in conversation!)

my wife and i had a similar discussion about "the golden compass" as what whipple brought up. primarily, desiring to read it to see just how it can discourage belief in god.

as whipple said, concepts such as justice, love/hate and courage must have objective reference points for them to truly be what they are. honestly, i have a very hard time believing that these "virtues" are the result of blind chaos. if that were truly the case, then why get angry when someone steals your car, your computer or your wife? the processes of blind chaotic mutations could have easily made the thief "right" and "just" in their actions "against" you. indeed, how could it be "against" you if neither of you have an objective reference point beyond the human experience?

seb~ this next comment is not directed at you personally, but just an observation:

my experience with self-proclaimed atheists whom i have talked to really do have a concept of god, and it is that concept of god which they choose not believe in. if there were, in fact, a god and he were totally different from the specific concept in the mind of the atheist, shouldn't the atheist in fact be called an agnostic?

seb~ if you spell out your beliefs on your blog, please include a link here in this comments section. also, if you describe what kind of god you do not believe in, that would be beneficial for my own understanding as well. thanks, bro!

[Seb]

Adam ~ A great many atheists are, in fact, very spiritual people who have rejected the models for god that established religions have offered. But a rejection of a given theory of god doesn't even mean a wholesale rejection of a religion. To say there is nothing of deep meaning or value in any religious text is sheer idiocy, and I don't know anyone who'd argue otherwise.

A lot of the conversation about god does seem to hinge on semantics: using differing terms for what amounts to the same thing. Jehovah, Allah, Jacques Lacan's The Real, or Quantum Physics... call it what you like, but these all can serve similar roles in a person's weltanschauung.

Here's the problem for many atheists: once agreeing that Whatever That Thing We Believe Is Called could reasonably be named "God," the faithful then say to the atheist, "Well, then, now that we're on the same page, check out all the accoutrements that come with it. Are you interested in the whole package?" The answer is usually, sorry, no. To self-describe as an "atheist" slams that door shut to solicitors, as opposed to "agnostic," which implies the possibility for change.

As for objective criteria for morality... if I may recommed reading some of the works of Christopher Hitchens. Given that he's among the most militant antitheists alive, I know this sounds a bit like recommending Mein Kampf to a Jewish friend. But honestly, he's done marvelous work at demonstrating how secular humanism, unfettered by faith, can still produce a solid moral compass. (Richard Dawkins is a great 2nd choice.)

Personallly, I believe that the fabric of reality is best explained by the laws of physics, and that morality is the result of social evolution (because hey, violence is exhausting AND poor way to ensure the survival of the species). Of course, this rational ontology is tempered by my fascination with Lacanian psychoanalysis and various bits of cultural theory RE: the Weird, Hauntology, etc.