March 11, 2004

• I think I forgot to tell you that the great god Pan is dead. Most of the village gossip I've heard opines that it's because no one believed in him anymore. And, sorry, but, as much as I tried to read the whole thing, the first sentence of every paragraph made my eyes glaze over and my mind wander. I'll try it again later.
• It's funny to think that in America at least these are marketed as childrens books. I read them in 7th or 8th grade while attending a Catholic private school. If I hadn't had religion shoved down my throat since kindergarten, I might not have grasped some of the finer points of the story. But I did, and it resulted in some heated debates in religion class. Basically the teacher didn't like the questions I was starting to ask. These are wonderful books and I'm thrilled to see a stage version, even more thrilled that someone with religious power has given them a thumbs up. It will hopefully make people less likely to ban them and more likely to read them.
• "if you believe in a mortal God, who can win and lose his power, your religion will be saturated with anxiety - and so with violence." It seems like a point worth pondering until you realize that Christianity and Islam believe in an immortal god and have yet somehow managed to be horrifically violent. His thesis doesn't at all account for that. Second, he completely misunderstands the meaning of "killing the Buddha". One might also note that the Buddha was not a god. I'm hearing a lot about these books lately. They sound fascinating. I'm going to see if I can find them at the library this weekend.
• His Dark Materials was a great trilogy. I am Catholic, and I think it went along great with my religion. It might be one of those, you get what you take out of it things. If you haven't read it, then don't read what I am about to write. Seriously, stop reading this. Ok, fine, ruin for yourself. Anyways, I think that the god-like figure that they killed was an old view of what God was (some old guy, floating around and punishing people). The "dust" is more like the way I percieve God to be (an omnipresent existence, that resides in everything, and that everything resides in). I had a lot more thoughts on the meaning ofthe book, but it's been a long time since I read it, and I forgot them.
• [banana] Well, I think he got right that about "killing the Buddha" in the sense that if some comes to tell you he had found the truth (or in this case, God) and he will show it to you, then that someone has found nothing at all. And it doesn't seems so clear the archbishop is mixing up the concept of the Buddha with the concept of God. It's not about believing in a mortal or inmortal God, but conceiving him/her in an anthropomorphical way, what generates all the anxiety and violence in religions. As I understand what Pullman was trying to say. If you examine the fact that most christians believe that God is inmortal yet can be human, also his own son, his own father, can die (and resurrect), can love, can be angered, repudiates rich people, and says to himself "father, why have you forsaken me", then you'll understand why they become so angsty. I wish the guys at the Vatican had a tiny bit of the sense this guy, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has.
• Mackerel, what is your definition of a diety? Is it internally consistent?
• Oh jjray, excellent link!
• an excellent link for me as well. i had read about the new a-b of c and wondered about him. so i enjoyed reading his evaluation. then, out of curiousity, i read the pullman articles.....then i was over at the library and took out book one of the trilogy. the librarian told me they are quite popular childrens' book for those youths who have finished harry potter and are ready to 'move up'. since i've never read harry potter, i suppose i am jumping blindfolded into the middle of something here......i shall let folks know if i suddenly stop....or start...believing in who/whatever this entity is.
• Very interesting review. Although I have not read His Dark Materials trilogy, I have wondered about the religious aspects ever since I read some venomous comments from Pullmen regarding the Narnia trilogy - another trilogy I have a great deal of respect for.
• I think it's interesting to conceive of a god that can fuck up (free will) and then try to fix its' mistakes by immunizing it's creations by becoming one of them... It's a Shakespearean god, full of tragedy. The aesthetic choices that implies quite intrigue me.
• Fine link, dng. [banana]
• Monkity, I sometimes have thought about the judeo-christian god being the way you put it. The bible would make more sense if God wasn't described as perfect. Precisely I think there's a book about that.
• As "His Dark Materials" progresses, its spiritual world becomes more and more constrained by rules and laws, which form the logic of the story. This is a story about the interaction of a God which already exists, a God which has already been defined outside of the human mind, and consequently Philip Pullman has defined a blasphemy within religion, rather than, as is more common, from outside it. Turning inside out, His Dark Materials could be seen as an enormous logical contradiction, proving the hypotheses "does God exist" false for one case of its existence, and therefore, assuming an infinite God, proving the existence of God false everywhere. "The question may somehow be raised of what exactly the God is in whom [atheists] don't believe," prompts the Archbishop. I agree this is an important question, but it also illustrates the freedom in which His Dark Material approaches logic. The books are tremendously abstract: looking at something, it appears not black, not white, but both, not somewhere in between, but contradicting each other in parallel. If, as the Archbishop states, Atheists will questions the grounds of their approach, I also think His Dark Materials tells the opposite to the religious: "Step by step, I am taking the universe to pieces, God is here somewhere, what is it?". Further back, questioned here is "do we live in an objective universe or not?" I really appreciate the Archbishops consideration and understanding, and his words are fair and considerate, unlike the venom perused in the Amazon reviews of the books. dng, this was a very interesting post to respond to.
• Zemat, that's an interesting-looking book. Thanks!
• I have enormous respect for Rowan Williams, who is not only a subtle and original thinker but a wise and humane man. A refreshing contrast to his disastrous predecessor, who made the poor old Church of England a laughing-stock in the eyes of all intelligent people, and was once unkindly described as "the worst Archbishop of Canterbury since the Puritan Archbishop Abbot shot dead a gamekeeper in 1621". He is also a highly regarded poet. His poems are not entirely to my taste, but I admire their technical accomplishment; here's an example. It's wonderful to have an Archbishop who is also a creative writer, and I'm sure it explains why he is so sympathetic to Philip Pullman. He understands the value of storytelling and the power of the imagination.
• thank you, verstegan, for confirming what i had hoped. williams definitely seems as much rooted in the real world as the sacred one and that makes for a rare combination. he seems to be handling many challenges quite well.
• A transcript of an interview between the Archbishop and Philip Pullman. (from Metafilter)
• Censorship is a terrible thing. So thank goodness it never works, says Philip Pullman
• Zealots threaten atheist Philip Pullman
• Let them pray that Pullman will not be killed and end up a saint like Thomas Beckett...