God in the dust

[Varaj]

Very interesting read.


What Catholics attacking 'The Golden Compass' are really afraid of
ON DEC. 7 New Line Cinema will release "The Golden Compass," starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig, the first movie in a trilogy with the massive budget and family blockbuster potential of "The Lord of the Rings."

Yet, even before it opens, "The Golden Compass" finds itself at the center of a controversy. The Catholic League, a conservative religious organization, launched a campaign on Oct. 9 calling on all Catholics to boycott the film. The group also published a lengthy pamphlet attacking the story and distributed the pamphlet to Catholic schools across the country. Other groups have joined the fray, including the evangelical nonprofit Focus on the Family, whose magazine Plugged In urged parents to keep kids out of theaters showing the film. And the Christian blogosphere is alive with warnings not only about the movie trilogy, but also about the series of books it is based on.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, charges that the books, known as the "His Dark Materials" trilogy, are deeply anti-Christian. Donohue says he fears that the film will inspire parents to purchase "His Dark Materials" for their fantasy-hungry kids on Christmas, unaware that the third book of the series, "The Amber Spyglass," climaxes in an epic battle to destroy God. Some of the book's villains are referred to as the Magisterium - a term used to refer to the Catholic hierarchy. The British author, Philip Pullman, has said openly that he is an atheist, and Donohue charges that his books are designed to eradicate faith among children.

But this is a sad misreading of the trilogy. These books are deeply theological, and deeply Christian in their theology. The universe of "His Dark Materials" is permeated by a God in love with creation, who watches out for the meekest of all beings - the poor, the marginalized, and the lost. It is a God who yearns to be loved through our respect for the body, the earth, and through our lives in the here and now. This is a rejection of the more classical notion of a detached, transcendent God, but I am a Catholic theologian, and reading this fantasy trilogy enhanced my sense of the divine, of virtue, of the soul, of my faith in God.

The book's concept of God, in fact, is what makes Pullman's work so threatening. His trilogy is not filled with attacks on Christianity, but with attacks on authorities who claim access to one true interpretation of a religion. Pullman's work is filled with the feminist and liberation strands of Catholic theology that have sustained my own faith, and which threaten the power structure of the church. Pullman's work is not anti-Christian, but anti-orthodox.

This emerging controversy, then, is deeply unusual. It features an artist who claims atheism, but whose work is unabashedly theistic. And it features a series of books that are at once charming and thrilling children's literature, and a story that explores some of the most divisive and fascinating issues in Catholic theology today.

Pullman wasn't always "the most dangerous man in Britain" as he has been called by columnist Peter Hitchens. Pullman studied literature at Oxford, went on to become a schoolteacher, and then discovered he had a knack for drawing middle-school-aged children to the edge of their seats over classics like "Beowulf." Pullman began to write stories of his own in the early '80s.

It wasn't until Pullman married his talent for epic adventure with the genre of children's fantasy in "His Dark Materials" that he reached a wide audience. The book the movie is based on, "The Golden Compass," came out in 1995 and won the Carnegie Medal, awarded for an outstanding book of children's literature. The sequel, "The Subtle Knife," was released in 1997, and the final installment, "The Amber Spyglass," was published in 2000 to wide acclaim, including the prestigious Whitbread Prize, the first given for a children's book. The series has sold some 12 million copies worldwide.

In interviews, Pullman has gone on record as an atheist, not only doubting God's existence but charging that organized religion has been an instrument of evil in world history. He has criticized C.S. Lewis's Christian allegory "The Chronicles of Narnia," because Pullman sees in "Narnia" a world in which innocence is so prized that Lewis never allows his heroines and heroes to grow up.

But to reduce Pullman to these few juicy sound bites is to ignore the whole of a complex, exuberantly curious intellectual who has infused his writing with a complex, crisply rendered theology.

The trilogy is a retelling of Milton's "Paradise Lost," the classic epic poem from which Pullman borrowed a line, "His Dark Materials." Milton tells of the battle between Lucifer's army of fallen angels and God's rule in heaven. In "Paradise Lost," God prevails. But in Pullman's book, the two child protagonists help to defeat the rule of the Authority and the Authority dies.

When critics say that Pullman's series advocates killing God, this is what they mean. But that is the most literal possible reading, and misses the point of the books.

The "God" who dies in "The Amber Spyglass" is not a true God at all. Pullman's Authority is an impostor, more like Milton's Lucifer than like a traditional conception of God. In the novels, the universe's first angel tricked all other angels and conscious beings created after him into believing he is God, and has spent an eternity building a corrupt empire for the purpose of hanging on to absolute power.

Readers of the trilogy know that the Authority is a tyrannical figure who uses his power to deceive, to conceal, and to terrorize. His death not only liberates all beings, but reveals the true God, in which and in whom all good things - knowledge, truth, spirit, bodies, and matter - are made. The impostor God has spent an eternity trying to wipe out all traces of the divine fabric of the true God - what Pullman calls Dust - because it is so threatening to his rule.

Most Christians are taught to imagine God through the first and second parts of the Trinity, through the Father (God) and the Son (Jesus). Pullman's vision of God is much closer to the third part of the Trinity: the Holy Spirit. Dust is the Holy Spirit.

For Christians, then, perhaps the most important concept of all in the story is that divinity isn't just a being, but a substance that loves us and animates us, yet has a mind of its own. In the books, Dust's love for humans is unconditional, even though they often do things to hurt and deplete Dust's influence and presence. Dust has many names in "His Dark Materials": Wisdom, Consciousness, Spirit, Dark Matter.

Dust also has a distinctly female cast. When Pullman personifies Dust, and he does on occasion, he uses the pronoun she. Evoking the third person of the trinity as female is nothing new - in fact it's biblical. Wisdom (Sophia in Greek) is the feminine aspect of the Holy Spirit. One finds God spoken of as she in both Proverbs and the Psalms (among other places). Framing the divine through Spirit-Sophia is nothing new either - this is a move made famous by the work of revered Catholic feminist theologian Elizabeth Johnson, a professor at Fordham, in "She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse," now a classic text among Christian feminist scholars.

God is not dead, then: A false God has died and the true God - a feminine divine - is revealed.

The universe of "His Dark Materials" is far from atheistic or anti-Christian, but to understand why, we must allow ourselves to open up to a theological vision that exceeds the narrow agenda set by some Catholics.

Pullman's Dust certainly moves beyond orthodox Christian ideas about God. Dust is a "spirit" that transcends creation, but all living beings are made of Dust, so Dust is a part of creation. While Dust is indeed the divine fabric of the worlds of "His Dark Materials," Dust is not all-powerful, all-knowing, and immutable. Dust is as dependent on creation for its sustenance as we are dependent on Dust for ours.

This view of Dust echoes many of the theological ideas that the Catholic Church finds threatening today. The most obvious thread is liberation theology, the Marxist and socially progressive rereading of the Gospels born among Catholic theologians in Latin America in the 1960s. Liberation theology teaches that Jesus is a political revolutionary who loves all that God has created and wants all creation to flourish on this earth, not just in heaven. Liberation theology also holds that believers should disregard doctrine that leads to oppression.

This is not an idea in favor with the current leadership of the church. In placing the common welfare above the dictates of church authorities, this movement has sparked a long running battle with the Catholic hierarchy. The Church has issued high-profile attacks on liberation theologians, both in official Vatican documents and, perhaps most famously, in the reprimands issued to the former Brazilian Franciscan priest Leonardo Boff by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican office led by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The cardinal is now Pope Benedict XVI.

Dust also reflects strains in feminist theology that reframe the divine as feminine and hold that Christians' relationship with the divine is mutual, not hierarchical: We make ourselves vulnerable to God as God makes God's self vulnerable to us. Many see this feminized God as a kind of heresy - a rejection literally embodied in the fact that women are forbidden to represent Jesus through the Catholic priesthood.

Pullman's characters who discover the true God fall so deeply in love with the divine that they will sacrifice everything - even the bonds of first love. They are willing to hold on to this God even if it requires that they wage war with the powers that be, the authorities called Church and Magisterium - those who rule by secrecy and serve a false God who takes the form of the old man in the sky.

It is a beautiful story, and a Christian story. It is a story that could prompt believers to reflect on their faith. It is just not a story that everyone may want you to read.

Donna Freitas is a visiting assistant professor of religion at Boston University. She is the coauthor of "Killing the Imposter God: Philip Pullman's Spiritual Imagination in His Dark Materials," and author of the forthcoming "Sex and the Soul" from Oxford University Press.
Here (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2007/11/25/god_in_the_dust/?p1=MEWell_Pos2)

[Lady Fury]

I already got my spam like email asking me to boycott the movie. The main part they wanted to emphasize was this: "We need to get the word out about this movie - it is coming out in December - an atheist produced it, it is marketed for children and in the end they kill God. "

I'm Catholic. I don't think a movie is going to change my beliefs and boycotting a form of entertainment just because it has differing beliefs is stupid. Are people so afraid that they might be turned to the dark side if they watch the movie.:grey: I plan on seeing the movie and I may just take my 6yr old daughter with me as well.

I liked the Snopes article as well. Link (http://snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp)

[Ancalagon]

I read the books a few years ago and really loved them. Then, as now, I am baffled how they can be considered "children's book" as they contain very challenging theological concept.

The trilogy is definitely anti-church, but not anti faith. Of course, all this caterwauling from the the "Catholic" League is only going to generate publicity for it.

Ancalagon

[Varaj]

I read the books a few years ago and really loved them. Then, as now, I am baffled how they can be considered "children's book" as they contain very challenging theological concept.

They can be children's books because you can miss the whole deeper meaning and still have a great story targeted at kids. It is a kids book because that is what most of the book is geared towards.

Just like any good kids movie will have stuff that only adults will catch, the same is true with kids books.

[Lady Fury]

They can be children's books because you can miss the whole deeper meaning and still have a great story targeted at kids. It is a kids book because that is what most of the book is geared towards.

Just like any good kids movie will have stuff that only adults will catch, the same is true with kids books.

QFT

Taking my older kids to the movies and watching them be entertained and not being bored out of my own mind is always a plus. :D

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I read the books a few years ago and really loved them. Then, as now, I am baffled how they can be considered "children's book" as they contain very challenging theological concept.

The trilogy is definitely anti-church, but not anti faith. Of course, all this caterwauling from the the "Catholic" League is only going to generate publicity for it.

Ancalagon

Why do you say the books are "not anti faith"?

[Ancalagon]

Why do you say the books are "not anti faith"?

As the article point out, the books in no way shape or form suggest that there is nothing divine - quite the contrary.

[Eliezer]

The books are anti-established religion and whenever authors tend to do that they tend to point out the dominant religion of their area. So the books are blatantly anti-church, but hardly atheistic.

I find nothing offensive in them. The criticism leveled against the "church" in the books have some good historical foundations and those same criticisms have been leveled before.

I hardly find any controversy over this.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Hmm... it all goes back to parenting skills, doesn't it? Like engaging your kids in a dialogue about what the movie says, asking them what they got out of it, offering your own interpretation and challenging them to make up their own minds.

Too many people resort to blinders without understanding that they have a chance to let their children grow. And for the parents to grow with them.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Rowan has gone on the record as saying that, if he lived in the world of the books, he'd be part of the "Republic of Heaven" (the group that "kill God" in the third volume)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Rowan has gone on the record as saying that, if he lived in the world of the books, he'd be part of the "Republic of Heaven" (the group that "kill God" in the third volume)

Given Rowan's response to Spong, I think he's having himself on.

The books are atheistic in the sense that "the Authority" claims to be God but is really just the first creature ever to attain consciousness in the universe. In short, he's a Babylon5-style "old one" pretending to be God - probably a Vorlon.

[Varaj]

Given Rowan's response to Spong, I think he's having himself on.

The books are atheistic in the sense that "the Authority" claims to be God but is really just the first creature ever to attain consciousness in the universe. In short, he's a Babylon5-style "old one" pretending to be God - probably a Vorlon.

Man Vorlons were pricks!

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Man Vorlons were pricks!

Yes and no. The first Kosh showed their good, if incredibly patronising, side.

The Vorlons were like a stern father who was convinced he knew what's best for us because, only yesterday, we really were puking babies who couldn't fend for ourselves and he hasn't fully realised we've finally grown up.

By contrast, the Shadows were like a crazy sleazy godfather who wanted to take us out and get us drunk and stoned and buy us hookers all night and couldn't face up to the fact that we've finally grown up.

[Varaj]

The Vorlons were like a stern father who was convinced he knew what's best for us because, only yesterday, we really were puking babies who couldn't fend for ourselves and he hasn't fully realised we've finally grown up.

Yeah like I said pricks. :)

[The Winslow]

I liked the Snopes article as well. Link (http://snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp)


From it:
As one of the novel's pagan characters puts it, "Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling."

This is, unfortunately, rooted in truth. More precisely, every fundamentalism is exactly that, and every church has fundamentalists.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Given Rowan's response to Spong, I think he's having himself on.

Typical fucking "New Atheist". An intelligent, thoughtful theist just has to be lying - either to himself or the public at large

[Varaj]

Typical fucking "New Atheist". An intelligent, thoughtful theist just has to be lying - either to himself or the public at large

Dirty, dirty theists. ;)

[Pigs in Space]

Dirty, dirty theists. ;)

post pix!

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Typical fucking "New Atheist". An intelligent, thoughtful theist just has to be lying - either to himself or the public at large

Excluded middle - a person can be genuinely mistaken (indeed, I expect this is the biggest category). Or they could be right. So that's an excluded middle and an excluded extreme.

But in Rowan's case I think "having himself on" is right, for the reasons I gave.

[The Winslow]

Again with ostracised mediums... You make me head hurt. Me not even sure what "having oneself on" means -- so I'm just going to assume it means masturbating.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Again with ostracised mediums... You make me head hurt. Me not even sure what "having oneself on" means -- so I'm just going to assume it means masturbating.

"Having oneself on": wishful thinking; believing one's own PR; convincing oneself of a comforting or convenient proposition that is rather clearly not the case. For example, most of us who'd like to believe we'd have joined the French resistance rather than keep our heads down and collaborate to some extent with the Nazi occupation are probably "having ourselves on".

[Ditto.]

Are you fucking kidding? I would be saluting and fucking goose stepping.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Are you fucking kidding? I would be saluting and fucking goose stepping.

The I salute you for not "having yourself on".

I'd like to think I'd be a hero, but I'm pretty sure I'd be at best a watered down Oscar Schindler type - self preservation first, then surreptitious assistance to the Jews when I was pretty sure I could get away with it.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

"Having oneself on": wishful thinking; believing one's own PR; convincing oneself of a comforting or convenient proposition that is rather clearly not the case.

So you do think that Rowan is lying to himself

[Atticus_of_Amber]

So you do think that Rowan is lying to himself

Maybe. It could be working on a more subconscious "I refuse to acknowledge the cognitive dissonsnce caused by the contradictions in my position" kind of thing. Those are, after all, the sort of mental gymnastics that politicians engage in all the time in order to live with themselves. And Williams is, after all, a politician of Clintonian skill - it's one of the things I admire about him.

[Varaj]

it's one of the things I admire about him.

I've always loved his tight buns in those slacks. :drool:

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I've always loved his tight buns in those slacks. :drool:

It's the eyebrows that do it for me

(hang on - are we still talking about Rowan?)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

It's the eyebrows that do it for me

(hang on - are we still talking about Rowan?)

I like his Obi-Wan Kenobi looks and manner. But most of all I admire his Machiavellian political skills. What I don't admire (but which, unfortunately, goes with the Machiavellianism) is his occasional hypocrisy and intellectual incoherence. But I keep forgetting that he's now a politician, not an intellectual.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

But I keep forgetting that he's now a politician, not an intellectual.

Quick question Atticus: are you attempting to get an emotional response out of me my posting this?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Quick question Atticus: are you attempting to get an emotional response out of me my posting this?

No. I am interested to see if you disagree with me. I'm interested to see if you'll try to justify some of the contradictory positions Rowan has taken without resorting to the politicians defence (which, in my view, would win the argument for you; but it's the *only* thing that would win the argument for you).

I'm trying to lure you into a discussion that will expose what I see as the contradictions in your viewpoint. If you manage to reconcile them persuasively, I may have to change my mind about a few views I've been developing. If not, you may have to change your mind about some of your views - either that, or start rabbiting on about unspecified "excluded middles" and "dodgy premises" again.

Unfortunately, that conversation will have to wait. I have to write a sternly worded letter to The New Republic and then I have to get to work for the next ten hours or so.

But why don't you swing over to the teddy bear thread? I'd be fascinated what you think of Darkfire's inability to unequivocally condemn religious laws against stoning adulterers, insulting Islam and apostacy.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I'm not interested in talking about the internal politics of the Anglican Communion at this time. Or, frankly, at any time - it's too depressing

I'm following the thread about the teddy bears with interest, but I don't think I have anything to contribute

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I'm not interested in talking about the internal politics of the Anglican Communion at this time. Or, frankly, at any time - it's too depressing

I'm following the thread about the teddy bears with interest, but I don't think I have anything to contribute

Oh, it's not so depressing. I just got married in a High Church ceremony with vestments, bells, a choir (singing Jerusalem and willing to sing "I vow to thee"), high and low alters, holy water, incense and holy smoke, blessing of the rings and all the trimmings - in the middle of Sydney! All it lacked as a little Latin.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

(I've rearranged your post because what I want to say worked better in a different order. I hope you don't mind)

I just got married in a High Church ceremony with vestments, bells, a choir (singing Jerusalem and willing to sing "I vow to thee"), high and low alters, holy water, incense and holy smoke, blessing of the rings and all the trimmings - in the middle of Sydney! All it lacked as a little Latin.

Firstly, congratulations. Secondly, get to bed, you're supposed to be having mind-blowing sex while the honeymoon period lasts. Thirdly, how the hell did you manage that in Sydney of all places!?! This is the diocise that (allegedly) threw the cathedral rood screen into the river (allegedly) because it was too popish (allegedly). You must have found the last bastion of High Church Anglicanism in the state.

Oh, it's not so depressing.

The politics are depressing, because it's all to do with weak, vunerable, frightened, petty human beings. I wouldn't mind so much except we're supposed to being transformed into the likeness of Christ and don't see this anywhere often enough. If anything makes me lose my faith it'll be that

But thanks for reminding me that sometimes we get some bits right. Your wedding sounds like one of them

Edit: Oh yeah, and since we're talking about finding God in the Dust, and now Rowan and places where Anglicanism gets it right, I can't help but plug this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Writing-Dust-Rowan-Williams/dp/0340787198/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196684905&sr=8-1) again

[Atticus_of_Amber]

(I've rearranged your post because what I want to say worked better in a different order. I hope you don't mind)

Firstly, congratulations.

Thank you.

Secondly, get to bed, you're supposed to be having mind-blowing sex while the honeymoon period lasts.

Just got bakc from the honeymoon. It was very enjoyable, thank you. Though the 72km bush walk over four days was a little much for my lawyerly fitness levels.

Thirdly, how the hell did you manage that in Sydney of all places!?! This is the diocise that (allegedly) threw the cathedral rood screen into the river (allegedly) because it was too popish (allegedly). You must have found the last bastion of High Church Anglicanism in the state.

St James church, first church in Sydney, right next to the law courts building, congregation of liberal lawyers who love ceremony. One of the few bastions of liberal and High Church Anglicanism in Sydney. Wonderful.

[dekster]

The politics are depressing, because it's all to do with weak, vunerable, frightened, petty human beings. I wouldn't mind so much except we're supposed to being transformed into the likeness of Christ and don't see this anywhere often enough. If anything makes me lose my faith it'll be that

But thanks for reminding me that sometimes we get some bits right. Your wedding sounds like one of them


Not to hi-jack the thread but I have a high opinion of Anglicanism though not an Anglican. (Just part of one of its descendants.)

Are you familiar with NT Wright? If so, I'd be interested in your opinions about some of his political activity. Would there be a better place to discuss it?

Thanks for your time.

[dekster]

BTW, I would like to read these books. I've heard so much about them that I'm very curious.

The movie also looks really kewl and I believe it's marketed to kids. From what I've heard, my little girl (at eight) shouldn't have any problems with it and I'd enjoy taking her to it.

Once again, this shows no one wants to talk w/ their children. It's all about don't look, don't touch and don't taste. That just never works.....it always leads to problems.

Talk and explain and love. Makes sense to me, at least.

[Harry]

The books are very good, but I didn't think they were quite the marvels they are made out to be by some. They are books geared towards teens, which is why the movies are marketed the way they are. Being written for teens doesn't mean they don't make a fine tale for an adult to enjoy, but it does mean that they are a quicker read than, say, Kim Robinson or something denser.

I liked them a lot, and found eventually that the "spoilers" naysayers feel the need to post whenever discussing them to have little effect on how much I enjoyed the read. I recommend the books, especially as a quick but fun read.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Are you familiar with NT Wright? If so, I'd be interested in your opinions about some of his political activity. Would there be a better place to discuss it?

The Bishop of Durham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright)? I've got a few of this books, mostly the popular theology rather than the deep stuff. Don't agree with everything, but at least with him I have to figure out why I don't agree with him. Do you want to start a thread?

[dekster]

The Bishop of Durham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright)? I've got a few of this books, mostly the popular theology rather than the deep stuff. Don't agree with everything, but at least with him I have to figure out why I don't agree with him. Do you want to start a thread?

Sure! That would be great! I'll post it in the other area I guess.

Yes, it is the Bishop of Durham. He's quite an interesting fellow. Got to meet him once.

[Northcott]

Huh. Looks like it may not have been over-reaction at all.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp

...and although literary works are subject to a variety of interpretations, Pullman has left little doubt about his books' intended thrust in discussions of his works, such as noting in a 2003 interview that "My books are about killing God" and in a 2001 interview that he was "trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief."

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Pullman is a committed rationalist, no doubt. But the books are ambiguous, or should I say agnostic, in that they don't say that there was no intelligent creator of the world, just that the creature called God or the Authority was an imposter and was merely the last remaining member of the first species ever to achieve consciousness.

[The Winslow]

Huh. Looks like it may not have been over-reaction at all.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp

Yeah, that's what he says. But that's not very convincing. Honestly, I would find Lovecraft's books far more militantly atheist than Pullman's.

[Dacke]

trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.
Good. Christian belief needs to be undermined.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Good. Christian belief needs to be undermined.

You know, I don't believe that I've every issued a neg-rep (I could be wrong, but if I have, I've forgotten about it). I came very close here. It would have had a single word: "Thoughtless"

[dekster]

You know, I don't believe that I've every issued a neg-rep (I could be wrong, but if I have, I've forgotten about it). I came very close here. It would have had a single word: "Thoughtless"

Do you really think it's worth the trouble?

[Varaj]

Do you really think it's worth the trouble?

Rarely is.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Good. Christian belief needs to be undermined.

Quite right. And it would have been both thouhtless and unfair for RF to have neg repped you for that.

However, as much as I believe that Christian belief should be undermined (indeed I think its becoming a moral imperitive to do so), I don't really think the His Dark Materials trilogy does so.

[Darkfire]

Quite right. And it would have been both thouhtless and unfair for RF to have neg repped you for that.


:lol::lol::lol:

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Quite right. And it would have been both thouhtless and unfair for RF to have neg repped you for that.

I was going to posi-rep you with the message "thouhtless", but apparently I must spread some more rep around before giving it to you again

When the fuck did I do that? ;)

The thing that really amuses me is that you've edited that post, but for some reason still didn't fix the typo

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I was going to posi-rep you with the message "thouhtless", but apparently I must spread some more rep around before giving it to you again

When the fuck did I do that? ;)

The thing that really amuses me is that you've edited that post, but for some reason still didn't fix the typo

The post was written from my Blackberry. There's no telling what that fiddly little browser will do when I'm not looking.

[Dacke]

You know, I don't believe that I've every issued a neg-rep (I could be wrong, but if I have, I've forgotten about it). I came very close here. It would have had a single word: "Thoughtless"
Anything that makes people less likely to believe unfounded superstitions is good in my book.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Anything that makes people less likely to believe unfounded superstitions is good in my book.

Assuming that you were somehow able to click your fingers and eliminate Christianity, what would we be losing? I suppose it looks a little different if you live in the theocracy that United States is rapidly turning into but...

No soup runs, no food banks, no Salvation Army. No. Safety. Net.
Cut staff in the teaching and caring professions by something between a quarter and a third
No Alcoholics Anonymous, no Narcotics Anonymous
No Red Cross, no Medician Sans Frontiers, CAFOD, Oxfam...

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure other people can contribute

Altruism is learned behaviour

[Space Cadet B^3]

C'mon Dacke, religion does offer a way to give back. Sure many bad things also happened in the name of religion, but how many times has a church stepped up and helped? How many agencies only exist because of the church?

I'm an unbeliever, and I believe you're being unreasonable about this.

[Trainz]

Assuming that you were somehow able to click your fingers and eliminate Christianity, what would we be losing? I suppose it looks a little different if you live in the theocracy that United States is rapidly turning into but...

No soup runs, no food banks, no Salvation Army. No. Safety. Net.
Cut staff in the teaching and caring professions by something between a quarter and a third
No Alcoholics Anonymous, no Narcotics Anonymous
No Red Cross, no Medician Sans Frontiers, CAFOD, Oxfam...

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure other people can contribute

Altruism is learned behaviour

These are all very good points.

To take your little fantasy a single step further (the gander is hearing the goose's braying, you see...):

Assuming that you were somehow able to click your fingers and eliminate Christianity, how many lives would have been saved throughout history?

[Lady Fury]

I went and saw the movie last night. As a Catholic I figured it was my obligation to go.:tongue: The movie has some really good special effects. The acting was amazing. The ending left the entire theater in silence then disgust. We just stood there expecting more but there was nothing.

I had an uneasy feeling watching the movie. I'm surprised Nicole Kidman didn't have a problem with the word they used to refer to human souls as. That part I really didn't like and I had to explain to my daughter that they meant something different for that word.

I'm going to have to read the book now to see how things end up. Also I'm curious to see what was left out.

Over all I did like the movie for entertainment value. It was worth full admission. The underlying messages are what disturbed me. I can definitely see why there was so much controversy over this film.

[Varaj]

No Alcoholics Anonymous, no Narcotics Anonymous

That is a plus or at least not a minus. AA and NA have the exact same success rates, according to their own studies, as somebody stopping by themselves without any support. They are damaging because they are all that exist and the the faith that is put in the program hurts real research.

As for the rest of your list you have to assume a lot to think the rest won't still happen. I believe those exist because of human nature not because of religion. Religion is a reflection of human nature not a creator of it.

[Dacke]

No soup runs, no food banks, no Salvation Army. No. Safety. Net.
Safety nets can be perfectly well administered by governments or non-religious charities.

Cut staff in the teaching and caring professions by something between a quarter and a third
Say what? I doubt most teachers and nurses, at least around these parts, are in it for their religion.
No Alcoholics Anonymous, no Narcotics Anonymous
As Varaj pointed out, AA and NA have a success rate roughly comparable to people quitting on their own.
Altruism is learned behaviour
Again, altruism is not necessarily linked to religion.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Richard, I'm disappointed in you.

Assuming that you were somehow able to click your fingers and eliminate Christianity, what would we be losing? I suppose it looks a little different if you live in the theocracy that United States is rapidly turning into but...

No soup runs, no food banks,

Why would an abandonment of Christian faith entail the end of these things?

no Salvation Army.

Maybe. But it might reform in a Spongian direction, and if not, its just one charity among many, many of which are secular.

No. Safety. Net.

Why would an abandonment of Christian faith entail the end of these things?

Cut staff in the teaching and caring professions by something between a quarter and a third

Again, why?

No Alcoholics Anonymous, no Narcotics Anonymous, No Red Cross,

Maybe. Maybe not. See comment on the Salvos.

no Medician Sans Frontiers, CAFOD, Oxfam...

Huh? Aren't those secualr charities? I'm pretty sure MSF was founded by an atheist. And Oxfam is recommended on all the "new atheist" websites as a non-religious charity that atheists should donate to in preference to the religious ones.

And that's just off the top of my head.

That's obvious.

Altruism is learned behaviour

The biological evidence is somewhat against you on that: see Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (1976) and many of his later books - "We are altruistic because are genes are selfish. ... It is in our genes selfish interest to make us altruistic. ... Evolution has given us a lust to be good; much in the way it has given us a lust to have sex."

But clearly, altruism is a natural capacity that can be encouraged or discouraged by environmental factors.

[Trainz]

But clearly, altruism is a natural capacity that can be encouraged or discouraged by environmental factors.

Right.

Many animals display an altruistic-like behavior. Critters within a communal group help each other out, some females caring for the offspring of other females for example.

Surely, Richard wouldn't go as far as to state that animals believe in Christ...

[Tetsubo]

Assuming that you were somehow able to click your fingers and eliminate Christianity, what would we be losing? I suppose it looks a little different if you live in the theocracy that United States is rapidly turning into but...

No soup runs, no food banks, no Salvation Army. No. Safety. Net.
Cut staff in the teaching and caring professions by something between a quarter and a third
No Alcoholics Anonymous, no Narcotics Anonymous
No Red Cross, no Medician Sans Frontiers, CAFOD, Oxfam...

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure other people can contribute

Altruism is learned behaviour

So you are saying that without Christianity there would be a power vacuum? One that would *never* be filled by any other group? Not bloody likely...

I dream of a world without organized religions of any kind. I'm all for faith and spirituality. I in fact think that a human without a faith is less than complete. But organized religions have done far, far more harm than good...

[Tetsubo]

My wife and I saw -The Golden Compass- Saturday. We both thought it was quite entertaining. Dakota Blue Richards was wonderful. The armoured bears were great!

I don't think it is a good film for six year olds though. There is some brutal violence. Especially when the bears get going...

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Huh? Aren't those secualr charities? I'm pretty sure MSF was founded by an atheist. And Oxfam is recommended on all the "new atheist" websites as a non-religious charity that atheists should donate to in preference to the religious ones.

Oxford University Christian Union famine relief committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam)

And MSF is an ICRC off-shoot


The biological evidence is somewhat against you on that: see Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (1976) and many of his later books - "We are altruistic because are genes are selfish. ... It is in our genes selfish interest to make us altruistic. ... Evolution has given us a lust to be good; much in the way it has given us a lust to have sex."

But clearly, altruism is a natural capacity that can be encouraged or discouraged by environmental factors.

And research into the behaviour of feral children is against Dawkins (New Scientist article a few months back, I don't have an online subscription). One theory is that the mirror neurons don't develop without early stimulation

I dream of a world without organized religions of any kind. I'm all for faith and spirituality.

Does anyone else see these two sentences as contradictory? How do you communicate shared experiences without a common ideology?

[Harry]

That doesn't appear to be a religious charity, despite the origins of the name. Kind of like The Red Cross, which I have no problems whatsoever donating to, as opposed to the Salvation Army.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

You have to remember I'm starting from a different point, especially if you're posting from the States

But it might reform in a Spongian direction

Never going to happen. Even within TEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_in_the_United_States_of_America), Spong's support is almost non-existent.

So you are saying that without Christianity there would be a power vacuum? One that would *never* be filled by any other group? Not bloody likely...

Why are you assuming that the replacement group would be any better. I can think of one that would be much worse: Scientology

That is a plus or at least not a minus. AA and NA have the exact same success rates, according to their own studies, as somebody stopping by themselves without any support.

Penn and Teller need to stick to the card tricks. Unless these studies did something very, very clever in the methodology, they aren't comparing the same populations. Almost by definition, AA and NA members have tried stopping by willpower alone and failed

[Tetsubo]

Oxford University Christian Union famine relief committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam)

And MSF is an ICRC off-shoot



And research into the behaviour of feral children is against Dawkins (New Scientist article a few months back, I don't have an online subscription). One theory is that the mirror neurons don't develop without early stimulation



Does anyone else see these two sentences as contradictory? How do you communicate shared experiences without a common ideology?

Ask the Buddhists... :)

But why do you need the same organized religion to relate to each other?

[Dacke]

Penn and Teller need to stick to the card tricks. Unless these studies did something very, very clever in the methodology, they aren't comparing the same populations. Almost by definition, AA and NA members have tried stopping by willpower alone and failed
Possible explanation: people who can stop by willpower alone do so. Those who can't go for AA. So in effect, the AA population consists of those who have already failed with other methods.

[Varaj]

Penn and Teller need to stick to the card tricks.


Huh?

Unless these studies did something very, very clever in the methodology, they aren't comparing the same populations. Almost by definition, AA and NA members have tried stopping by willpower alone and failed

Uhm no, please provide studies of the success rates of AA.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html
http://www.aa-uk.org.uk/alcoholics-anonymous-reviews/2005/07/study-question-effectiveness-of.html

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Oxford University Christian Union famine relief committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam)

And MSF is an ICRC off-shoot

Well, if that's the case, someone needs to sue Oxfam for false advertising. Their both on lists on atheists websites as non-religious charities and many of those lists have been compiled after the organisations on them responded to a questionnaire on their religious affiliations. Interestingly, I can't find anything religious on Oxfam's website. It may well have outgrown its original religious origins.

MCF is often described, and describes itself, as a "secular' organisation without religious affiliation. I'm pretty sure one of its co-founders was an avowed atheist.

The red Cross has always confused me. Its name suggests its a religious charity, but people keep listing it as a secular one.



And research into the behaviour of feral children is against Dawkins (New Scientist article a few months back, I don't have an online subscription). One theory is that the mirror neurons don't develop without early stimulation

That can't be right. If mirror neurones don't develop, the kids would be retarded, incapable of learning anything except through personal trial and error. Altruism is merely a side effect of mirror neurones, after all.

I'm interested in the study though. Non-human primates in the wild exhibit lots of altruistic behaviour, so it's surprising to find that humans have less natural altruism than Chimps. Though, if you provide a particularly toxic environment, I can see natural impulses towards altruism being supressed - but it would have to be a pretty damn toxic environment to be worse than what chimps face in the wild.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

[Spongian religion is]Never going to happen. Even within TEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_in_the_United_States_of_America), Spong's support is almost non-existent.

Things might get better, who knows? I certainly hope so. I have a great deal of affection for the Anglican church.

But that's the choice: Alchemy morphed relatively seamlessly into chemistry. Astrology just got pushed to the margins and laughed at. I hope Anglicanism chooses the alchemy route.

[Varaj]

There aren't that many feral children to study. I would love to see the study myself.
Found this study, but it doesn't have any surprise results in it.
http://www.physorg.com/news103964110.html

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Huh?Sorry - the "AA is pointless and useless" meme was popularised by an episode of "Bullshit"

Uhm no, please provide studies of the success rates of AA.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html
http://www.aa-uk.org.uk/alcoholics-anonymous-reviews/2005/07/study-question-effectiveness-of.html

First link is to one of those obsessively ranty sites you occasionally find on the Internet and my brain tuned out. Sorry
Second link references a metastudy showing it's no better and no worse than other forms of treatment and that no formal treatment technique is significantly better than willpower alone

That can't be right. If mirror neurones don't develop, the kids would be retarded, incapable of learning anything except through personal trial and error.

Yep

I'm interested in the study though.

It was an article summarising lots of current research into developmental psychology, with particular reference to feral kids. I'd imagine it would have been about the time that this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Savage-Girls-Wild-Boys-Children/dp/0571214606/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I5EXE3JR0TXVI&colid=2L3JX3955F38F) came out. I've got feral kids on the brain at the moment because I'm doing initial research for YotZ: Wolf Pack.

Non-human primates in the wild exhibit lots of altruistic behaviour, so it's surprising to find that humans have less natural altruism than Chimps.

It's learned behaviour even in primates. Do you remember that "I really don't understand this thread - so here's a monkey humping a robot." picture? (can someone post it?) That's from an experiment into socialisation in primates. If a primate is deprived of social contact during the early part of it's life it will have life-long difficulties in socialising. This is basic development psychology - I'm surprised no-one seems to have heard about it before

But we're now into the nature-nurture debate. My ideology teaches me that no human being is ever completely beyond hope, so I'll have a tendancy to learn towards the nuture end of the spectrum. I can't help it - I'm infected :D

[Varaj]

Sorry - the "AA is pointless and useless" meme was popularised by an episode of "Bullshit"


I don't usually like the show but may have to watch that one. :)


Second link references a metastudy showing it's no better and no worse than other forms of treatment and that no formal treatment technique is significantly better than willpower alone


The second says exactly what I stated.

It is no better and since it is no better and it sucks up resources and prevents research it is questionable if it provides any benefit and not harm.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

It is no better and since it is no better and it sucks up resources and prevents research it is questionable if it provides any benefit and not harm.

Is the problem in the technique or in the perception of the effectiveness of technique?

As the AA are commissioning and publishing research into their methods, it's difficult to argue that they don't want to improve what they do

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Before people suggest that Christian belief is eliminated, I suggest that they take a look at how many of the basic support services in their neighbourhood are provided by religious charities or by publically secular charities with Christian origins and/or a disproportionate number of Christians working for them. In Bedford it's three out of four of the night shelters, the woman's refuge and the day centre

Also, they need to look number of people in the caring and teaching professions who see what they are doing as an expression of their faith; there's a disproportionate number of doctors, nurses and teachers at my church. I don't think that my town or my church are particularly unusual

Non-religious people could be doing these things and are doing these things, but two questions have to be asked: why are

I think some of us are alreadyfamiliar with the results of this study (http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html) (I suspect Atticus is waiting for an appropriate moment to pull it out). It would seem to refute me - religious belief is negatively corrolated with just about every measure of societal health you can think of

Three things:

1) Any study that would rate the Archbishop of Cantebury as an agnostic has a flawed methodology
2) If you remove the United States then things look very different. The dominant form of religion in the US is fundamentalist evangelicalism - not particularly common in the other developed countries in the study
3) As I've noticed elsewhere corrolation is not causality; the increase in religiousity might be a consequence of an unhealthy society

[Varaj]

Is the problem in the technique or in the perception of the effectiveness of technique?

As the AA are commissioning and publishing research into their methods, it's difficult to argue that they don't want to improve what they do

Really what has changed in the method?

[Varaj]

3) As I've noticed elsewhere corrolation is not causality; the increase in religiousity might be a consequence of an unhealthy society

Apply this to everything you have said.*


*Note I'm not in favor or removing Christianity or any other religion (even Islam :) ).

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Really what has changed in the method?

I haven't a clue. I can't believe that they won't have changed anything in the last sixty years, though

Apply this to everything you have said.*

Are you suggesting that people might be attracted to organised religion because they like helping people? Good point. I haven't thought of that before

I withdraw my previous comments. It's quite possible that Christianity, particularly US-style fundamentalist Evangelicalism may actually have a toxic effect on society

[Varaj]

Are you suggesting that people might be attracted to organised religion because they like helping people? Good point. I haven't thought of that before

Purely anecdotal but I've talked to more than one person about why they go to a specific church and had the answer come down to "They help more."

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I think you'd have to take things on a church-by-church basis to look at the benefit to their local community. Breaking things down to the level of denomination or even diocise would be no good. To take a (not so random) example, there's a huge difference in style and practice between two particular Anglican churches in Sydney (I'm thinking of St. James and everywhere else, Atticus :) )

[Harry]

The ending left the entire theater in silence then disgust.

Well, I finally got to see the movie today. Holidays in retail and movie going are a tough thing to manage.

The audience at the cinema today was very engaged in the film, which surprised me. I suspect that a lot of them were there because AvsP or National Treasure were sold out. But at many points during the film, there was laughter, verbal "ooohs", and at the end, a fair amount of clapping.

I'd heard and read enough "ho-hum" reviews of the film that I went in with lowered expectations, but in no time I decided the film was perfectly grand. It was a wonderfully good time. After getting the lengthy exposition scenes out the way, it rocked along at quite a clip, and never paused for an instance. The only negative in that regard was that the filmmakers, instead of merging some scenes from the book, or glossing over certain points, they just raced right past them, ignoring detail in many places in order to get the bare outline of the story on screen.

And I don't have a problem with that, having recently read the books. But I'm sure many people were scratching their heads.

The acting was adequate to very good throughout. Even the child actors, which surprised me. The CGI was absolutely incredible. Breathtaking at times. I'm an intelligent, well read, and critically minded film viewer, and yet I never doubted for an instance that, for example, the director had managed to suit up polar bears, get them to talk, and let little girls ride them. The effects were that good.

As it should be, the Witch, Bjorn the Bear, and Lee Scoresby completely stole the show whenever they were on screen. They have a similar impact in the book as well. But Scoresby in particular had the audience in glee, even though his role is somewhat restrained. The daemons were never much more than window dressing, which was good. At first I thought they would be a distraction, but except for the monkey they rarely were.

I hope this leads folks to pick up the books, and get the details of the story that were left out of the film.

[Lady Fury]

I hope this leads folks to pick up the books, and get the details of the story that were left out of the film.

I look forward to reading the book now that I have it. I think I'll be able to form a better opinion about the story line if I have more details. Now it's just a matter of finding the time to read.