If you have read my previous blog entry regarding the upcoming release of The Golden Compass, that is based on the award-winning writer Philip Pullman, you may wonder what you might say to combat the ideology of Pullman when he asserts: “When you look at organized religion of whatever sort – whether it’s Christianity in all its variants, or whether it’s Islam or some forms of extreme Hinduism – wherever you see organized religion and priesthoods and power, you see cruelty and tyranny and repression…” “It’s almost a universal law.”
Is that true? Is Christianity to be accurately viewed as a wrecking ball on humanity? Is that then why Pullman views religion and a belief in God at all, something that needs to be abolished in order to really live free? Is atheism, in the killing of God as depicted in Pullman’s books, the real “messiah” for humanity?
Watch Dinesh Dsouza, a Christian and New York Times Best Seller, debate this point with acclaimed writer and atheist Christopher Hitchins. Within this debate you will see the merits of both sides as well as the basis for the ideology of the movie, The Golden Compass.
Hint: Get a cup of coffee or tea prior to watching (over an hour and a half long) and skip the introduction. The points made and the argument that Dinesh builds are, in my opinion, very compelling. In other words, it is well worth your time.
Haven’t watched the D’Souza debate, so he may address this…
Pullman says, “wherever you see organized religion and priesthoods and power, you see cruelty and tyranny and repression.”
I’d ask why, then, were the most murderous regimes in the history of the world (Hitler, Stalin, and Mao) explicitly atheistic?
One other thing. I’m glad Mr. D’Souza is out there taking on the new atheists, but I would want to caution against uncritically looking to him as a role model for a couple of reasons.
1. Mr. D’Souza was Greg Koukl’s guest on the Nov. 4 Stand to Reason show. D’Souza has no problem incorporating evolution into his worldview. I think he does it to get his message across to a broader audience, but it’s too high of a price to pay… apologetically, he’s giving away as much ground as he’s gaining (if not more). See Melinda Penner’s blog about D’Souza’s book.
2. Melinda also addressed this in short form, but Douglas Groothuis (Professor at Denver Seminary; teaches apologetics and philosophy) was sharply critical of a similar concession that D’Souza made in the opening minute of the debate. Quoting Groothuis:
Like I said in my other comment, I haven’t seen the debate yet. I owe it to D’Souza to watch it and I’ll try to do so, but these are important points to bear in mind. Ultimately we have to defend Christianity as truth, not just as something that sounds good.
Hugh, I heard this discussion as well and would not employ D’Souza’s tactic. However, I understood his reasoning and realize that he does this in order to get a greater point across in the specific context of secular reasoning. It seems to me that given the context of D’Souza’s environment during debates his tactic was understandable albeit undesirable for me personally. I am curious to hear your evaluation of the debate… please check back and give us your thoughts.
Not sure why this would not just be a continuation of the other blog on this same topic, but here goes.
Here is more “light on intellectual” and “heavy on practical” discussion from me. 😉
Just seems like more of the same from people that do not see a Christian world view/ideology as we think they should. They believe that religion is part of the problem of the world. In many ways I believe that to be true other than genuine Christianity, and that too is rare, but thankfully all around us at GF.
Without question there would be less war, 9-11 would not have happened and we would not be in Iraq if we had less “religion” in the world. Being lumped in with those other religions can be offensive to us, but we are looked at the same as Catholic priests and the scandals with young boys, televangelists, and abortion clinic bombers. How can the world see any distinction in us when we are preoccupied and busy “playing church” and leaving the world to run on cruise control? Seriously?
I wonder what some other famous authors would say about Christians and religion in general. I bet they have similar views to Pullman. Can you not relate to where this guy is coming from, even if it is somewhat of a warped view?
John Lennon wrote the song “Imagine”, living in peace with “no religion, and no heaven” but I still love the Beatles and their music. Does that make me less spiritual or a incorrect world view? Should be be boycotting the Beatles, or just not listen to that one song?
We can go on about authors that are currently in the spotlight to try and make our points, but there is nothing new or special about this subject other that the author is being more vocal than others that would much rather keep their mouths shut and keep selling books and theatre tickets.
That’s one man’s opinion with normal brain power.
Goodnight.
Any time the church and the state link arms much harm can be done as well. Throughout history when the church has made an unholy alliance with the state, such as, for example, the Orthodox Church in Czarist Russia and the Roman Catholic Church in medieval times, the results have been tragic.
It could be that Pullman, not understanding what true Christianity is, may be reacting to things such as this when he decries priests and ‘organized religion’.
However, as Hugh points out, the evils of these regimes pale in comparison to those perpetrated by the atheistic regimes of the 20th century in terms of brutality so Pullman claiming that atheism is the answer is kind of amazing. He must either be a terrible student of history or so ideologically driven that he’s blind to the truth about atheism’s track record in this regard.
I watched the first hour of the debate last night and went to bed once it got into Q & A. A couple of things…
1. One of D’Souza’s opening salvos was the “atheists are responsible for more evil than anybody else” argument I put forward in my earlier comment. Hitchens was really sensitive to that and tried to pin Nazism on the Catholic church and Stalin’s evils on the church/state union in Czarist Russia. He never addressed Communist China though.
2. Hitchens never made a single argument. Lots of bluster that sounds powerful and rattles a lot of people’s cages, and is probably effective in a culture that is characterized by short attention spans and is easily swayed by appearances. But he never advanced an argument in support of his position.
3. Hitchens labeled lots of things as “immoral” but never justified how an atheist can call anything “moral” or “immoral.” As Ravi Zacharias often says, if you’re going to ask questions about morality, you’re implying a belief in a moral law; if you believe in a moral law, you’re implying a belief in a moral law-giver. But if you’re denying the belief in a moral law-giver, how can you call anything moral or immoral unless you’re simply expressing your opinion?
All in all, D’Souza did OK. He held up well against a powerful speaker and got some good points in. It wasn’t as powerful as I would have liked, but I’m not the guy in the arena getting bloodied and fighting the good fight — so my hat’s off to Dinesh.
Also, this just shows the limited value of debates. A powerful speaker can win a debate in the minds of the audience without making a single real point. The moderator also needs to be more forceful in constraining the flow of the debate; I think Marvin Olasky did a poor job of that. Hitchens especially got off-track and broke the rules of debate. But again, to the audience, that probably doesn’t matter — you’ve got to make your points in a way that is compelling to those who listen, and it takes a very able debater to both play by the rules and win the audience at the same time.
Well, in light of DSouza’s commments paralleing Ravi Zacharia’s against Pullman’s world view……Ah never mind…..I digress back into my dark corner of the room with my dunce cap on.
I have changed my mind on this just a bit…..
Even Snopes shows that the writer has an agenda.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp
Just saw that Al Mohler is planning to address “The Golden Compass” movie on his radio show today at 5:00.
It can be accessed via his website as well http://www.albertmohler.com