The Golden Compass Controversy

[Live True]

It scares them because faith is just belief without evidence. I can have all the faith in the world that Superman exists and treat DC comics as holy text yet it won't make it true. Religion is shaken to the core so easily because like any other fairy tale it does not stand up to logic and scrutiny. They are afraid kids might like Pullman's fiction more than the bible's fiction.

I just think their fear is misplace, because they are the one's responsible for the core of their children's beliefs and learning...so they need to step up to the plate and be role models AND guardians. Don't ask others to be do thier job!

But on your implication that religion doesn't stand up to logic and scrutiny. and is therefore worthless...well...Some will find this ironic, as I am a Pagan defending Christianity. However, my husband is Christian, I believe strongly that each person must find thier own personal roots of belief and life, and we are both people of deep faith.

I don't think everything in this world has a logical, rational explanation...at least not one we understand at this time. I mean, sheesh! that would be so boring and deadening to the soul.

Now, let me first say that I am a HUGE fan of hard science, the scientific method, and scientific theory. But let's look at a few current theories and scientific concepts. We can' t touch a black hole, and even now the theories of how they work and exist are still evolving and changing. Does this mean they can't exist? Don't think so. Dark matter...is still just a theory, but one that is gaining validity in how the universe is constructed.

Or let's go back a bit further, to when the earth was the center of the universe. That was proven fact of the day...we know now it wasn't well proven, but hey...they thought they had rationally determined that the world was flat and the earth the center of all....

Simply put, I think faith is several things, of varying degrees to varying folks: 1)where we put those personal truths that have not yet been proven by science 2)where our closely held personal beliefs find a foundation 3) where we find hope and comfort 4) and where we tie ourselves to something larger than the individual

You don't have to agree with me on this. But I simply ask that you not paint someone as stupid or illogical, because they choose to have faith in something that cannot be seen or touched. As the bard put it in Hamlet:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[Omar B]

I'm not here to change anyone's belief either, I was simply stating how I see the issue being both an atheist and a fan of Pullman. I'm also the son of a scientist and an economist and happen to be a journalist. I'm programmed from birth to see logic and toss out fantasy, faith, belief and see facts.


It has often been noted that a proof of God would be fatal to religion: a God susceptible of proof would have to be finite and limited; He would be one entity among others within the universe, not a mystic omnipotence transcending science and reality. What nourishes the spirit of religion is not proof, but faith, i.e., the undercutting of man's mind. - Leonard Piekoff

 

[FearlessFreep]

Look at it in this light...

If you were a Republican (or Democrat, or whatever) and someone wrote a book negative, maybe even insulting, against your party, and you feel the book was inaccurate, then you would be against it. Not because it threatened your view of politics or your beliefs as a Republican, but just that a) someone was insulting what you held dear and b) you would fear that people would look poorly upon your party for what you wold feel would be erroneous reasons.

Or TMA or Taekwondo or MMA or Boxing, for that matter. Someone writes an article saying your art is no good. You don't change your opinion of your art, but it's not fun for someone to be denigrating of your art, and you don't wan someone to have a negative impression of your art because of what you feel is misrepreentation

 

[Rich Parsons]

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Story?id=3970783&page=1



Although I have not seen the movie, I'm curious about what other's thoughts are on the subject? Are the makers of this movie somehow in the wrong for producing the movie? Was the writer of the book in the wrong? Does anyone have a right to condemn the movie based on the themes it may or may not present?

I believe in an open market.

If someone wants to spend money to make a movie and then release it should be allowed and the public will let you know if ti was worth while with their money they spend.

And if this movie is to be pulled then so should all religous movies. Just to be fair and PC and all.

 

[ChingChuan]

Unfortunately, it's been quite a while since I read the golden compass books, but as I am a Christian, I feel that there are some legitimate concerns regarding the books (I never saw the movies). It wasn't the lack of religion, however, and it's also not about the magic, but I seem to remember that there were some things about a creator and angels etc that I didn't quite agree with. (but unfortunately, it's too long ago... I think I should re-read them). Also, in the last book, the amber spyglass, one of the protagonists (a woman) uses I-Tjing to determine what she should do - a form of divination. I didn't really agree with that - the use of real, existing 'religion' in a fantasy setting.
But to me, the story was quite confusing and the only thing I remember was a feeling like 'I don't think I really agree with this but it's not extremely bad either'. Still, I can't say I really enjoyed the books .

I'm a Harry Potter fan, so I already know that not everything that is said about books is true. However, I think that there are more anti-religious themes in the golden compass series than in the HP-series, so I wouldn't say that the church is being stupid...
If you were able to stop someone from walking into a ravine, you would do it. To some people, like most people on this thread seem to be, that ravine isn't real. Well, that's the way it is. But I don't think you can blame the people who are seeing that ravine, from trying to stop you from falling into it...

Also, I'd like to add that I view myself as a quite critical person and that I like science... I just can't stand it when Christians are seen as people who would just believe everything etc... God invites us to believe with our heart, soul AND mind - he wouldn't want brainless idiots following him... So, also regarding this kind of books/movies, I think that every christian should decide by hemselves what to do. After all, if something isn't explicitly forbidden in the bible (it's forbidden to practise witchcraft, but is it forbidden to read something that could be associated with it?), you can do two things - do it, or don't do it. The only point is, don't condemn the people who don't do it, and don't condemn the people who do... The only problem is that that's quite hard to achieve, especially when you really, really think it's wrong. (There's a great book,. What's a Christian to do with Harry Potter, on this subject... The view presented there works for every 'controversial' topic.)

 

[Doc_Jude]

I'm not here to change anyone's belief either, I was simply stating how I see the issue being both an atheist and a fan of Pullman. I'm also the son of a scientist and an economist and happen to be a journalist. I'm programmed from birth to see logic and toss out fantasy, faith, belief and see facts.


It has often been noted that a proof of God would be fatal to religion: a God susceptible of proof would have to be finite and limited; He would be one entity among others within the universe, not a mystic omnipotence transcending science and reality. What nourishes the spirit of religion is not proof, but faith, i.e., the undercutting of man's mind. - Leonard Piekoff

It's kind of like the Christians that point out the "good" or "true" things in the Bible (Models of Law from Leviticus or Natural Law from Deuteronomy, for example), and then say "Well, all that stuff is good, right? See, that proves that THE BIBLE is true and good."

A wise man once told me that "All good lies are at least 80% truth."

 

[Steel Tiger]

I find it interesting to see what film or book is going to get the "its an insult to religion and God" treatment. The Golden Compass is a film children will go along to, marvel at the grandeur presented, cheer for the good guys and sneer at the bad guys. They don't go to a film to consider the deeper meanings of the images portrayed, most of us don't do that.

Its funny though. On the weekend I sat through a film called Gabriel about archangels and demons battling for the souls in purgatory. This is blatant religiosity and it seriously changed important facts in the Christian mythos. The Archangel Michael loses his faith and falls. Why is it that we don't hear of films like this being castigated by religious groups. True children are not going to see this film with its violence, drug culture and sexuality, but they could buy the book easily enough.

These assaults on on which film is or is not an attack on, or insult to, religion are rather arbitrary. I think that religious groups have to have more faith in their supporters and develop a thicker skin.

 

[Doc_Jude]

These assaults on on which film is or is not an attack on, or insult to, religion are rather arbitrary. I think that religious groups have to have more faith in their supporters and develop a thicker skin.

They can't, actually, since most religions, if not all, simply won't stand up to the most cursory scrutiny. They aren't held together by truth, but by vehement faith and peer pressure.

 

[FearlessFreep]

It has often been noted that a proof of God would be fatal to religion: a God susceptible of proof would have to be finite and limited; He would be one entity among others within the universe, not a mystic omnipotence transcending science and reality. What nourishes the spirit of religion is not proof, but faith, i.e., the undercutting of man's mind. - Leonard Piekoff

Um... no


Think about the faith in your own life. Most of us have faith... faith that our instructor is teaching us well, faith that our training will serve us in good stead. Faith that our spouse will be faithful to us, faith that our children will grow up to be people of good character. This faith we have in the people around is is not a whim, but it based on our experience with those people. Prior behavior leads to expected future behavior. Trust begets faith

Religious people have the same faith. Not a blind faith. Most religious people believe they have an experiential basis for their faith based on an event or events in their own life. That doesn't mean they are correct, their interpretation of the events they have experienced may be emotional, or may be biased or may be just flat out wrong. Nevertheless that 'faith' is held to be a trust of expectations of the future based on experiences of the past.

Keep in mind that, at least with Christianity, the idea of 'faith' is a future expectation. The New Testament that talks of faith does so for the point of view of having faith in what God *would* do, based on what they were eyewitness to seeing God already have done. Regardless of the believed accuracy of the New Testament, it sets the framework for the Christian religion and way of thinking, and that tenor is one of a perspective that based on demonstrative proof of God's behavior, faith reaches forward to what is to be expected from God. The 'faith' of the New Testament is simply "we *saw* something (proof) therefore we *expect* something (faith)"

Because, contrary to the quote above, most religious people do have proof, at least a proof that is sufficient for themselves, based on what they have seen and experienced. The problem is that it is a personal proof based on the actions of a free-will agent, and as such is difficult to quantize, objectify, or empiricize. So as a result it can't stand a proof for anyone else. This is not a proof in any sort of scientific sense, of course, but is a 'sufficient' proof for getting through the day, which is not much different than the faith we have in the safety in our vehicles and the faithfulness of our spouses.

Most religious people do not come to a religious belief by reading a book and deciding that it sounds good, they come to that belief by en experience or experiences which provide for them a 'proof', and that proof provides a foundation of belief, which sets the expectation for a faith.


The interpretation of that personal experience that sets the 'proof' for an individual is certainly open to discussion and debate as to it's veracity

 

[Marginal]

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Story?id=3970783&page=1



Although I have not seen the movie, I'm curious about what other's thoughts are on the subject? Are the makers of this movie somehow in the wrong for producing the movie? Was the writer of the book in the wrong? Does anyone have a right to condemn the movie based on the themes it may or may not present?

Just watching the commercials makes me want to be a hard core atheist. Just like how Battlefield Earth instantly made me into a Scientologist.

 

[Doc_Jude]

Um... no


Think about the faith in your own life. Most of us have faith... faith that our instructor is teaching us well, faith that our training will serve us in good stead.

this is often blind faith, the same as faith in some future reward from an intangible unknowable god.

Faith that our spouse will be faithful to us, faith that our children will grow up to be people of good character.

faith in a spouse & in children usually comes from past experience, unlike religion.

This faith we have in the people around is is not a whim, but it based on our experience with those people. Prior behavior leads to expected future behavior. Trust begets faith.

Absolutely true. Faith based on experience is not blind.

Religious people have the same faith. Not a blind faith. Most religious people believe they have an experiential basis for their faith based on an event or events in their own life. That doesn't mean they are correct, their interpretation of the events they have experienced may be emotional, or may be biased or may be just flat out wrong. Nevertheless that 'faith' is held to be a trust of expectations of the future based on experiences of the past.

So, religious people have faith in a past experience that they believe to be attributed to supernatural origin or explanation. If such an experience actually could be attributed to a supernatural force... which cannot be proven, though the need to be accepted within the church community can fuel all kinds of imaginary happenings.

Keep in mind that, at least with Christianity, the idea of 'faith' is a future expectation. The New Testament that talks of faith does so for the point of view of having faith in what God *would* do, based on what they were eyewitness to seeing God already have done.

"Eyewitness"??? "Um... no"

Regardless of the believed accuracy of the New Testament, it sets the framework for the Christian religion and way of thinking, and that tenor is one of a perspective that based on demonstrative proof of God's behavior, faith reaches forward to what is to be expected from God. The 'faith' of the New Testament is simply "we *saw* something (proof) therefore we *expect* something (faith)"

I'm not even going to get into the complete and utter lack of independently verifiable proof than anything in the Gospels is true, let alone the vast majority of Jewish Old Testament "history".

B

ecause, contrary to the quote above, most religious people do have proof, at least a proof that is sufficient for themselves, based on what they have seen and experienced. The problem is that it is a personal proof based on the actions of a free-will agent, and as such is difficult to quantize, objectify, or empiricize. So as a result it can't stand a proof for anyone else. This is not a proof in any sort of scientific sense, of course, but is a 'sufficient' proof for getting through the day, which is not much different than the faith we have in the safety in our vehicles and the faithfulness of our spouses.

If your "proof" cannot be objectively quantified, is it proof? Most would say NO. Comparing the tangible to the intangible is like comparing quantum physics to Newtonian. Apples and Oranges.

Most religious people do not come to a religious belief by reading a book and deciding that it sounds good, they come to that belief by en experience or experiences which provide for them a 'proof', and that proof provides a foundation of belief, which sets the expectation for a faith.

Not true. Most people get into religion for fear of eternal punishment or some feeling of lack in their self-image. & most if not all people like to have a reason for experiences they can't wrap their little intellects around. THAT'S where they get the religious attribution from.

 

[Omar B]

Um... no
Think about the faith in your own life. Most of us have faith... faith that our instructor is teaching us well, faith that our training will serve us in good stead. Faith that our spouse will be faithful to us, faith that our children will grow up to be people of good character. This faith we have in the people around is is not a whim, but it based on our experience with those people. Prior behavior leads to expected future behavior. Trust begets faith
Religious people have the same faith. Not a blind faith. Most religious people believe they have an experiential basis for their faith based on an event or events in their own life. That doesn't mean they are correct, their interpretation of the events they have experienced may be emotional, or may be biased or may be just flat out wrong. Nevertheless that 'faith' is held to be a trust of expectations of the future based on experiences of the past.
Keep in mind that, at least with Christianity, the idea of 'faith' is a future expectation. The New Testament that talks of faith does so for the point of view of having faith in what God *would* do, based on what they were eyewitness to seeing God already have done. Regardless of the believed accuracy of the New Testament, it sets the framework for the Christian religion and way of thinking, and that tenor is one of a perspective that based on demonstrative proof of God's behavior, faith reaches forward to what is to be expected from God. The 'faith' of the New Testament is simply "we *saw* something (proof) therefore we *expect* something (faith)"
Because, contrary to the quote above, most religious people do have proof, at
least a proof that is sufficient for themselves, based on what they have seen and experienced. The problem is that it is a personal proof based on the actions of a free-will agent, and as such is difficult to quantize, objectify, or empiricize. So as a result it can't stand a proof for anyone else. This is not a proof in any sort of scientific sense, of course, but is a 'sufficient' proof for getting through the day, which is not much different than the faith we have in the safety in our vehicles and the faithfulness of our spouses.
Most religious people do not come to a religious belief by reading a book and deciding that it sounds good, they come to that belief by en experience or experiences which provide for them a 'proof', and that proof provides a foundation of belief, which sets the expectation for a faith.
The interpretation of that personal experience that sets the 'proof' for an individual is certainly open to discussion and debate as to it's veracity

Faith that our instructor is teaching us well - No, I chose an instructor out of many and I pay him for a service. There's no belief without fact (faith) it's belief because I assessed him as a teacher.
Faith that our spouse will be faithful to us - That's trust not faith and since most marriages end in divorce anyways.
Faith that our children will grow up to be people of good character - No, that's good parenting.

No matter what you say about faith I'm not gonna become a believer. If I can see proof or credible record of proof that's verifiable. I'll leave the faith to the ones who don't want to deal in such things as proof.

 

[Omar B]

I like the cut of your jib Doc_Jude, a man who understands objectivity and does not attribute every good thing that happens to some invisible, unverifiable force.

For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. "Infinite" as applied to quantity does not mean "very large": it means "larger than any specific quantity." That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.

 

[Tez3]

It never fails to amuse me that those who don't believe in a god are as keen to prove they are right as those who do believe!
Why is it so important to be 'right'? what happened to live and let live? Why must it have to be proved that the Bible is right or wrong? Does it matter? If you don't believe in the Bible why does it worry you that people do and vice versa? I don't see the need to argue over faith, you can have faith in what you want to have faith in or have none at all but please don't attack people just because they don't believe the same as you.
The topic is the film 'The Golden Compass' not the existance of a God as such, it really shouldn't turn into a thread attacking people which is where I fear it may lead.
Fearless Freep's post I felt was a well thought out impartial one and he made good points without stating what his religion was if indeed he has one! I suspect the following two posters may have not taken on board his points and his use of inverted commas.

 

[fireman00]

whether you decide to believe in God or not isn't really the issue... it would appear that the biggest slap in the face of the church would be in the timing of the release... why did the studio decide to put out the movie that which has undeniable anti-religious undertones - one that's written by an avowed atheist - unless they desired all this attention drawn to the movie?

 

[michaeledward]

whether you decide to believe in God or not isn't really the issue... it would appear that the biggest slap in the face of the church would be in the timing of the release... why did the studio decide to put out the movie that which has undeniable anti-religious undertones - one that's written by an avowed atheist - unless they desired all this attention drawn to the movie?

Have you seen the movie? From your description, I would have to say that you have not.

The statement the movie has 'undeniably anti-religious undertone' just doesn't agree with what I saw on the screen this weekend.

From watching the film, there is no way one could presume the author was an 'avowed athiest', nor an avowed vegitarian, nor an avowed anything. It is just not in the story.

As for drawing attention to the movie ... uh, ... isn't that the point?



Incidently, overseas gross for five days was $55 million. Domestic gross was $26 million.

 

[MBuzzy]

Personally, when I watched Chronicles of Narnia, I had no idea of the history behind the books or who wrote them or why (I know, I'm sheltered).....and I saw no religious overtones - because I wasn't looking for them.

I'm sure that if you look for the religious overtones in the movie, you'll see them. If not, you'll just see a fantasy movie.

 

[michaeledward]

Personally, when I watched Chronicles of Narnia, I had no idea of the history behind the books or who wrote them or why (I know, I'm sheltered).....and I saw no religious overtones - because I wasn't looking for them.

I'm sure that if you look for the religious overtones in the movie, you'll see them. If not, you'll just see a fantasy movie.

While I mostly agree with you ... there are many things in the movie that aren't quite as clear as in the book (as I understand it, having never read Narnia) ... I think the whole resurrection of the Lion is one seriously strong religious overtone.

He was dead. He came back to life. Made some sort of comment about self-sacrifice. I don't know, to me, that's a pretty big overtone.

 

[MBuzzy]

I think the whole resurrection of the Lion is one seriously strong religious overtone.

He was dead. He came back to life. Made some sort of comment about self-sacrifice. I don't know, to me, that's a pretty big overtone.

If you're looking for it....not all stories of resurrection are based on the bible. I'm watching Pirates of the Carribbean and Jack Sparrow is brought back to life after sacrificing himself.......ok, maybe a bad example, but you get the point. If the author hadn't stated that the books were based on christianity, not nearly as many people would have drawn that conclusion - in my very humble opinion. Although, I remember the conversation I had after seeing that movie and I said "Aside from the Lion coming back to life, I don't see what the movie had to do with religion."

As for The Golden Compass, I intend to see it this week, so we'll see. Although I intend to go into it pretty objectively....

 

[Doc_Jude]

It never fails to amuse me that those who don't believe in a god are as keen to prove they are right as those who do believe!
Why is it so important to be 'right'? what happened to live and let live? Why must it have to be proved that the Bible is right or wrong? Does it matter? If you don't believe in the Bible why does it worry you that people do and vice versa? I don't see the need to argue over faith, you can have faith in what you want to have faith in or have none at all but please don't attack people just because they don't believe the same as you.

Yeah, tell that to the Religious Right that feel justified to affect legislation here in the U.S., forcing the values of their belief system on everyone else. Separation of Church and State, for sure...