If you are having trouble viewing this email, click here.
December 12, 2007
by Dr. Benajmin Wiker

side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar Benjamin Wiker: Sandra, this isn't the first time you've taken on a contemporary author bent on distorting or attacking Christianity.

Sandra Miesel: In 2005, I co-authored The Da Vinci Hoax with Carl Olson for Ignatius Press. This was a detailed refutation of Dan Brown’s best-seller The Da Vinci Code.  We felt compelled to defend the divinity of Our Lord and the trustworthiness of Holy Scripture. Our book had its maximum response when the movie version of Brown’s novel was released in 2006.

Wiker: But obviously both of you think Pullman's children's trilogy, His Dark Materials, and The Golden Compass, the movie now out on the first of the trilogy, are cause for even greater alarm.

Miesel: Dan Brown’s audience was adult but Pullman’s books were published for children, although adults read them, too. The Da Vinci Code was a ridiculous, poorly written book, important only because so many readers thought it was true. Pullman’s great literary gifts make his books far more hazardous because—as he himself says— they are directed to “undermining the basis of Christian belief.” Through the power of storytelling, Pullman hopes to turn his young readers against religious authority and authority in general while turning them toward sensory delights.

The Golden Compass movie has been mostly cleansed of anti-Christian elements and the majority of reviews have been negative. If it fails at the box office, the more overtly blasphemous second and third volumes will not be filmed. Nevertheless, the movie has already raised US sales of the trilogy by 500% in recent months, not to mention the toys, games, and other paraphernalia.

Pete Vere:  The problem is not so much the first movie, but the books. I was asked to review the movie this past weekend. It exemplifies the one trait that will kill any epic fantasy at the box office: It's boring!

The real danger is not the movie but the books. The two main characters are twelve-year-olds leading a rebelling against the Authority, whom Pullman defines in the trilogy's third book by using most of the names for God found in the Old Testament. This is what it is. Let's not forget that Pullman's story is being marketed to children as young as nine. As a parent, I know what interpretation my children would latch on to if I allowed them to read Pullman's books. And as a parent, I know that my children would want to read the books if they found the movie interesting.

Wiker: Had either of you read Pullman's books before you had news of the movie production of The Golden Compass?

Miesel: I knew of Pullman’s trilogy but had avoided reading it because I was aware of its distasteful contents. Reading the books this fall was like having slow poison dripped into my veins. But I wanted to warn people so I wrote some articles about it for the Catholic press. Pete, who had been doing the same, suggested that we collaborate, resulting in Pied Piper of Atheism.

Vere: I had heard of them, however, I avoided reading them because there is so much better children's fantasy out there that doesn't insult the Catholic faith in particular or Christianity in general. A good example is Brian Jacques' Redwall series.

Wiker: Could you give us some overview of the trilogy? What makes it both so dangerous and so inviting? What particular attacks on Christianity are most shocking?

Vere: The first book tells the story of a twelve-year-old girl named Lyra who sets out to rescue her friend Roger from a Church that kidnaps children and subjects them to Nazi-like metaphysical and pseudo-scientific experiments. In the second book, we discover that one of the main characters is not leading a rebellion against the Church, but in the words of Pullman, "against the highest power of all. He's gone a-searching for the dwelling place of the Authority Himself, and he's a going to destroy Him."

Wiker: And there is not doubt who this “Authority” is?

Vere: Again, Pullman defines the Authority in the third book as: "God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty - those were all names he gave himself."

Miesel: Pullman turns Milton’s Paradise Lost upside down. His premise is that the wrong side won the ancient war in Heaven: the rebel angels were in the right. Then he mixes in bits of Gnosticism so that the Being that we worship as God—Yahweh himself—is an imposter and a tyrant. For Pullman, then, the Fall of Man was the beginning of wisdom, not a tragedy.

Furthermore, there is no Heaven or Hell, only a material “multiverse” containing billions of parallel worlds where history took different paths. Intelligent beings from these worlds unite to kill God the senile old Authority and replace his Kingdom of Heaven with a Republic of Heaven where everyone will be naturally wise and good.

Pullman’s protagonists are a pair of twelve year olds, Lyra and Will. They release the ghosts of the dead from Hades into oblivion, accidentally destroy the Authority, and reprise the roles of Eve and Adam to save the cosmos. Only Lyra appears in The Golden Compass which dramatizes her quest to rescue kidnapped children from monstrous, religiously motivated scientific experiments. The “compass” of the title is a clockwork divination device through which the fallen angels tell Lyra the “truth.”

Wiker: Pullman seems to have particular hatred of the Catholic Church, doesn’t he?

Miesel: Pullman’s unrelenting attack on Catholicism (here called the Magisterium) as a heresy-hunting, sex-obsessed theocracy offends Catholics, but his characters denounce all churches as enemies of joy and truth. His atheistic propaganda gets much more strident as the trilogy progresses until it finally overwhelms his story.

Wiker: Beyond his theological attacks on Christianity, does he attempt to undermine morality as well?

Miesel: Theology aside, Pullman’s books are objectionable for their violence including murder, suicide, euthanasia, mutilation, and cannibalism). Illicit sex is mentioned without disapproval and there are disturbing episodes of sensuality. Pullman never explicitly says that the children fornicate but it’s strongly implied.

Wiker: What do you think of protesting the movie?

Miesel: I haven’t seen the movie and don’t intend to. Noisy protests do nothing but generate publicity for The Golden Compass. I hope people will inform themselves about Pullman and quietly stay away from the movie. By all means discuss the trilogy with children but don’t buy them the books. Lodge carefully framed complaints if the trilogy turns up in school reading programs.

Wiker: Much has been made of the Harry Potter series, some Christians seeing dark elements, others declaring the whole thing entirely innocent. Is their anything innocent about Pullman's trilogy?

Miesel: Both Pete and I have strongly defended Harry Potter, whose author and symbolic structure are Christian. There’s relatively little magic in Pullman’s His Dark Materials, although there are witches. (Their most elaborate spell doesn’t work and their pagan gods may be illusions). Pullman has a handful of decent characters, including Lee the cowboy aeronaut played by Sam Elliott in The Golden Compass. Despite their alarming name, his “daemons” aren’t diabolical in the least. They’re people’s psyches made visible in animal form. But there’s no escaping the profound unwholesomeness of Pullman’s trilogy.

Vere: Pullman's use of magic and witches is probably the least objectionable thing in his trilogy. What is most objectionable is the blasphemy around which the story is based. From here is just flows into one objection after another. From denying God's authorship of creation to mocking the bodily resurrection and eternal life, Pullman inverts practically every article of the Apostle's Creed.

Wiker: Do you think we've entered a new phase of attack on Christianity through popular culture?

Miesel: Secular elites have been enthralled by Philip Pullman at least since The Golden Compass won the Carnegie Medal for children’s literature a dozen years ago. Mainstream media present him as brilliant and daring, a hero for “clear-eyed” people. His celebrity in post-Christian England may not cross the Atlantic but it won’t be for lack of publicity by our chattering classes. Depressing as it was to read Pullman’s interviews and profiles, I was even more troubled by the searing contempt for Christianity (and religion generally) shown by many of his readers who post on the Internet. They haven’t just rejected religion, they actively hate it, just like the readers who made atheist Richard Dawkins and his ilk non-fiction best-sellers. Because stories spread ideas better than tracts, I fear we’re going to see more anti-god entertainment than ever before.

Vere: Pullman's movie might not have been possible twenty years ago, but neither, I feel, would Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. It is no coincidence that some of the Church's greatest art has arisen in times of cultural persecution.

 

Responses to Missed Opportunity:

Dinesh, I thought you were superior in looks, delivery, the facts, and the ideas. Of course, because Dennett isn't good on his feet and has to recycle a power point slide show doesn't mean his ideas are bad...but his ideas are not concrete; they're more like a sieve; I think you showed this beyond doubt. Dennett didn't even belong on the stage with you. Hitchens, yes, but this guy was less sophisticated and ignorant of history and particularly science. Keep up the good work, my friend. - Mark Westhoff, Racine, WI

Dear Dinesh, Even though I knew I would be cheering for you prior to viewing this debate, I really did look forward to seeing Dennett put up at least as good a fight as Hitchens. Frankly, I was shocked at how weak Dennett was. He made no real arguments for atheism, just some predictable jabs at believers. Perhaps I’m being mean but at times he seemed like a confused old man, muttering and pawing through his notes. After viewing the debate I see he certainly is not the intellectual heavyweight I had expected. It seemed that even his basic knowledge of philosophy was lacking which is a bit embarrassing considering he’s a philosophy professor at Tufts – historically a major liberal arts institution. He had nothing to say to your points about Pascal, Kant, Hume and other foundational philosophers. You’d think a well trained philosopher would at least respond to your point about The Critique of Pure Reason to just show off his bona fides a bit. I guess in the modern academy one can raise to the level of professor without knowledge of basic subject matter. I don’t see how he could have been simply “caught off guard” either. Surely he must have viewed your recent debate with his fellow New Atheist colleague Hitchens. If not, he was simply unprepared or not up to the task. What we’re seeing here with Shermer, Dennett, and to a lesser degree Hitchens, is a group of people stuck in an intellectual ghetto of their own making. They live in a zone of ideas where everybody agrees with them and everybody they teach is required to agree with them. This is the state of the modern academy. Dinesh, I grew up in a university family (my father was a prof at the University of Michigan), and spent the greater part of my life in university communities (Ann Arbor, Boulder) and I know very well the smug assumptions and the absence of real debate or new ideas. When an outside barbarian like yourself comes into their arena, Dennett and his followers assume they’ll easily wipe up the floor with you. At the end of the debate, it was apparent that Dennett was intellectually shocked by what had happened and, moreover, angry that the students were paying more attention to you than him. In his closed world, he’s never had to face that kind of challenge and humiliation. I expect him to follow Dawkins and announce he will not debate with people outside the ghetto. Is Sam Harris your next match-up? Regards, - Stuart Harris

Dear Dr. D’Souza, I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that I have never read your books or seen you debate, but I ran across your Tuft’s University debate (November 30, 2007) with Daniel Dennett today and was totally astounded by the way you articulated your views and how you displayed sensitivity to others beliefs while espousing yours (also mine). I could not stop listening to it even though I had work to do. My only intent with this email is to thank you for your boldness and commitment to this cause. I am a Christian that would very much like to be able to in some small way do the type of things you are doing in this misguided world in which we live. Someday maybe we’ll meet, but for now I am going dive into your writings and start to learn more. If I do not get the opportunity to meet you on this side of heaven, I will for sure see you there! Bless your teachings & thank you for telling the truth to the world. Sincerely, - Dale Engskov

Mr. D'Souza, I watched your debate with Dr. Dennett on youtube last night. I must say that the thing that surprised me the most was the sheer arrogance of the kids asking questions. Dr. Dennett infantilized religious believers some, but he didn't treat you with anywhere near the condescension that the students watching the debate did. If they already know everything, why are they bothering with college? At one of your appearances, try asking one of the condescending folks who has complete faith that science refutes religion why the Caltech Christian Fellowship exists. I also thought you wiped the floor with him. He is so dismissive of religion that he wasn't the least bit prepared to counter most of your arguments. I think he thought that likening Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam to the John Frum religion would end of the debate. He didn't expect to have to refute anything else. Regards, - B.H.E.

I watched the debate at Tufts on U-Tube. Your opponent offended every one of my sensibilities. An old "philosopher" who has the brains of a box of rocks. No doubt - tenured at Tufts. You, on the other hand, were to the point, with sensible and concise responses - backed up with facts and you amazed me at your ability to pull, off the cuff, answers to questions without referring to handwritten notes as the "philosopher" did. D'Souza remains in my mind because of your intelligence and your quickness to answer difficult questions. It was obvious - you have done your homework. The "philosopher's" name escapes me - he made no impression on me other than negative ones. As sloppy and unkempt as he was, he must have come from the left side of the evolution process - left his brains behind, his barber behind, and his ability at learning the truth behind. He reminded me of a professor I had once who told us the earth was 3-billion years old. I told him that he was wrong! What he didn't know on that date many years ago, I had just read an article from Scientific American that the earth was 4-billion years old. So we debated several minutes on that subject. Then I told him about the article - and he conceded. So easy to deal with uninformed "philosophers"! You only have to use "facts" as presented by the "scientific community" - though I believe none of it. Good for you! And thank God you are out there giving the other side of the story. Regards, - Jim Coleson, Portsmouth, Virginia

Dinesh, I watched the video of your debate with Dan Dennett. It was quite a show. While you said his amiable demeanor made his position easy to understand, I felt it trivialized them. It seemed like he was there to argue a point he half-hartedly believed. I should read more of his work where I'm sure he lays out more persuasive details. I watched your debate with Christopher Hitchens as well and you were much different in this round. In the Hitchens debate you laid out the case for Christianity while in this debate you forcefully attacked the arguments of the atheists. You were much more animated and it seemed like you were itching for this fight. Dennett's most salient point was that you quoted then mischaracterized his work in your latest book. Perhaps due to time, you didn't clarify. I also thought you let one of his comments slide. While discussing morality, he ended one of his answers by saying that if you believe that morality comes from belief in God, then that says something about your mental state and nothing else. Isn't that equating belief in God as a mental disorder? I thought you could have made something of that. In all, this was a better performance that the Hitchens debate. I look forward to the next installment. Yours, - Craig Whitham

Dear Mr. D'Souza, I just sat through nine segments of your debate with Mr. Dennet on youTube.com and I felt compelled to write you and say thank you for your refreshing arguments for the existence of God. While we can debate the rightness or wrongness of the aspects of religions and their influence on history, it's hard to eliminate the probability of a creator. I have heard you recently on some of the talk shows I listen to and occasionally read your column on townhall.com. While Mr. Dennet has that comfortable look of a cheery Santa/wizened professor, there leaves little to doubt that when he tries to speak coherently on the subject (when he can stay on subject) he appears as a rambling fool. Now, if we can only get a curriculum on the subject of the "toxicity of liberalism" and leave the 3 Rs alone. Thanks for defending the faith so passionately. I'll get to your book as soon as I finish Laura Ingraham's, Ann Coulter's, and Glenn Beck's books. Alas, one more to the stack... - John Yates

Dinesh...if I may, Having recently devoured your singular book, savoring every morsel and mouthful, having even a bone or two pick with you (later), you stand as tall and cogent as any one I have read, short of Lincoln. I told my wife that believe you work is not only monumental, but pivotal. Thank you for your great contribution to what will in the end be the final debate, even as it was at the beginning, the first debate: Whether or not to choose God and live, today and forevermore. The issue truly is not, as we "religiousites" often want to make it--Mormon's vs Catholics vs Jews vs Muslims vs Protestants. Those arguments are a huge mistake toward the good of humanity and one which you are helping to disarm....perhaps even unwittingly? Since finishing your book, I have watched your debates with Hitchens and Dennett. Dennett was decimated; a total embarrassment to the Univ. Thank you for affecting the lives of our young. It seems I could see their minds being altered by your words. Debating Hitchens is like trying to corner an oil slick--you can never do it and you are guaranteed to get pretty dirty trying. (I actually greatly admire Hitchens, primarily for his intellectual honesty and consistency, even for his courage.) However, your arguments stand on their own, as do some of his questions. Less sarcasm, barbs and more meekness, a la Lincoln, would have scored you more points. All the very best in your worthy cause; may even the god of economics impose his laws of reward;) Sincerely, - Oscar A. Bluth
Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.
Click for a Printer Friendly Version
top
left links right
•Important information on The Golden Compass
 
bottom
about tothesource
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
subscribe email a friend
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
Ben Wiker  Trans Benjamin Wiker
Benjamin Wiker holds a Ph.D. in Theological Ethics from Vanderbilt University, and has taught at Marquette University, St. Mary's University (MN), Thomas Aquinas College (CA), and Franciscan University (OH).

He is a full-time writer, husband, and father. Dr. Wiker is a Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute and a Senior Fellow at the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology. He writes regularly for a variety of journals.

Dr. Wiker has written four books, Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists (IVP), The Mystery of the Periodic Table (Bethlehem), Architects of the Culture of Death (Ignatius), and most recently, A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature (IVP).
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org
counter