The Golden Compass is Atheism for Kids – Just Skip It
John on November 6, 2007 at 2:09 am
Phillip Pullman is the author of the His Dark Materials trilogy, a children’s fantasy series that has sold more copies in England than Harry Potter. Pullman is also an outspoken atheist who has announced his intention to be a kind of anti-Lewis.
This December, the first of the three books has been made into a big budget spectacle starring some high profile stars (Nicole Kidman for one). And what do you know, on the cusp of the film opening in theaters Pullman isn’t really hocking atheism anymore! It’s almost as if he’s had a conversion experience:
In his appearance on the “Today” show Thursday, Pullman implicitly denied that his work is selling “atheism for kids” when ”Today” host Al Roker brought up the accusations made by the Catholic League.
“Well, you know, I always mistrust people who tell us how we should understand something. They know better than we do what the book means or what this means and how we should read it and whether we should read it or not,” said Pullman.
I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian beliefInstead of guessing what the book is about, how about we just take Pullman’s word for it. As it happens, he was very clear about it in an interview with the Washington Post in 2001. Here’s what he said:
“I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief,” says Pullman. “Mr. Lewis would think I was doing the Devil’s work.”
That should be clear enough but in case it’s not, here’s how the Post article summed up the trilogy:
The epic story, which was inspired by Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” subverts fundamental Western religious principles and is populated by compassionate witches, malevolent theologians and a feeble, disingenuous God.
Still not convinced? Here’s how the late (and missed) Cathy Seipp described the end of the trilogy for NRO:
The big reveal in the Pullman series is a former nun’s loss of faith: A character named Mary Malone tells Lyra and her friend Will that flirting with a man in a café reminded her how much she enjoyed kissing a boy when she was 12 (about Lyra and Will’s age, as it happens). This makes Mary understand that the Christian religion is nothing more than “a very powerful and convincing mistake.”
More proof? Andrew Stuttaford, in his review of the trilogy for National Review, notes how the level of Pullman’s hatred for the church often turns his prose preachy:
So, for example, in The Subtle Knife a speech attacking the sinister Church of Lyra’s world becomes an attack on all churches everywhere: “Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling.” There is plenty more of the same, crude, nagging, and bombastic, its form objectionable, whatever one might think of the content. In writing his tales of Narnia, C. S. Lewis may also have been a man on a mission, but at least he had enough respect for his readers to prefer allegory and parable to assertion and propaganda.
In short, this absolutely is atheism for kids and Pullman absolutely is lying his ever-lovin’ ass off about it. Say what you will about him, Phillip, but Lewis would never have lied about who he was or where he was coming from to flog a movie.Pullman it seems to me is the worst kind of sell-out and coward. Anyone who lies about his life’s work in order to deceive unsuspecting parents into paying for the privilege of having their cherished beliefs ridiculed is simply not an admirable fellow in my book. I have the same distaste for him as I would the junior high counselor who passes condom to 13 year olds and promises not to tell mom and dad. And in fact, that’s very much what Pullman is doing since the trilogy ends with the 13 year old (or thereabout) male and female leads having sex with one another. Has the film been endorsed by Planned Parenthood yet? It should be.
Pullman has also become the go-to guy for CS Lewis bashing in recent years. The media have given him ample opportunity to describe Lewis as a racist and sexist, though obviously Lewis isn’t around to defend himself or his work. Say what you like about him, Phillip, but Lewis would never have lied about who he was or where he was coming from to flog a movie. I guess it’s really true that atheists have a different understanding of truth.
I’m not recommending that anyone protest or send angry letters about the film. A reaction like that only plays into Pullman’s hands. However I would suggest, if you’re a Christian and have kids that are looking to see a movie this Christmas season, skip Phillip Pullman’s Golden Compass and just choose another film. So long as we’re Christians we’ll get this kind of treatment from people like Phillip Pullman. But, so much as possible, let’s not reward them financially for insulting us.
Category: Movies |
[...] The Dark Materials trilogy is a beautiful and imaginative work. It is also written to proseltyze atheism, an agenda Phillip Pullman, the author had explicitly stated a number of times. (While also frequently taking the opportunity to bash C.S. Lewis). Though that bothered me I did love the books and was very excited to go see the movie. Until I read this. [...]
November 6, 2007 @ 10:42 amOh, get real. It’s a FICTIONAL movie for kids! How is this any more of an agenda than Shrek (promotes interracial marriage?) and Harry Potter movies (a world without religion at all-oh, my!) What about Moses – where hypocrisy is rewarded over and over and over…
An artist can have personal beliefs that you don’t agree with and still do good art; these books have won many awards, and you can probably interpret them to fit your needs; considering that the church in the book is an evil, Inquisition-era character, I’d think it would be a good lesson in what happens when scripture is interpreted the wrong way…
November 6, 2007 @ 8:23 pmGee, we can’t have anybody critisizing those insecure monotheists now can we! Let’s all sing the praises of the invisible psychopath in the the bible! Kill those babies Jehovah!
November 6, 2007 @ 9:39 pmChris,
You need to redirect your misplaced and misguided animosity, my friend. Did you even bother to read what John wrote or are you just some mindless accolite of Phillip Pullman? The point was/is that Pullman obviously doesn’t have the courage of his convictions and/or he doesn’t have the common decency to be forthright about his motivations and/or he is far more interested in being dishonest and subversive in order to accomplish his goals than he is in being truthful.
Bring on the criticisms of “those insecure monotheists.” If you spend any time around VS, you will see that we engage in dialog and discussion and criticism all the time. No worries. No problem. We welcome an honest and open exchange of ideas. In our experience it just seems that atheists and/or humanists such as yourself seem to be so pent up with anger and animosity and frustration and rage that the dialog is short on intelligence and logic and long on name calling and condecention.
November 6, 2007 @ 10:14 pmYou’re a wacko. I myself happen to be an atheist, and I found that lil’ remark at the end just hilarious. Yeah, we do have a different understanding of the “truth,” from your own, obviously. I don’t share Pullman’s views on religion, and I myself have only read the first book of the trilogy (it was kinda boring. Eh).
My question is: how is this guy promoting atheistic views in his books? Yes, an atheist he may be, but what he writes sounds a lot more like Nietzsche than an ‘anti-Lewis,’ with a weak and feeble FICTIONAL god. And, you know, all that. Given your distaste at ‘compassionate witches (gee. One of them wouldn’t happen to called Glenda, would she?) malevolent theologians (’cause lord knows THEY don’t exist, right? *cough* Fred Phelps *cough*),” and I’ve already spoke about the ‘god’ thing.
I think you have a very narrow-minded view of atheists, in general. This ain’t a good thing.
Guy wants to be the anti-Lewis, let him! I mean, we could of used him when Lewis was around. It is kinda funny, though. First you say that “at least Lewis used allegories,” and then you turn right around and say “at least Lewis would have never hid who he was!” Um…zuh? Something doesn’t fit there.
My two cents. For free.
November 6, 2007 @ 11:13 pmOh, and for the record: on the compassionate witches thing. Does that mean that real homosexual people, who are well-mannered normal people, are subversive as well?
Ya know, seein’ as how the homosexuals in the Bible were basically savages and all…just wonderin.’ Seriously. I’d like an answer to this.
November 6, 2007 @ 11:18 pmI’m sure that made sense to you but I’m having a hard time following whatever point you were trying to make.
Nietzsche is the writer who proclaimed the death of God, but since he was also an atheist I’m not sure how being “like Nietzsche” and being “anti-Lewis” are incompatible at all.
Pullman has essentially proclaimed himself an “anti-Lewis.” That’s his prerogative. I’m just saying I don’t plan on adding to his fame or his wallet by purchasing what he’s selling.
I do think he’s a coward to suddenly pretend as if his work isn’t about atheism in order to sell tickets to unsuspecting parents. Lewis wrote in allegory, as has Pullman. The difference is Lewis would never, ever have gone on television and lied to people about what he actually believed if asked point blank. Pullman just did exactly that.
So, yes, he seems not to value the truth very highly. If you do, then you ought to be able to admit what he’s doing is deceitful.
Oh, and as for witches, I have no problem with fantasy stories involving witches. You can read my glowing review of the Harry Potter series here. BTW, I stand by what I said even if Dumbledore is gay.
November 7, 2007 @ 12:42 amI never commented on the quality of Pullman’s writing. What I’ve said (since we seem to need a recap) is as follows:
1) His Dark Materials is fictional story for kids which is intended to undercut Christianity.
2) Pullman is lying to conceal point #1 now that he wants to promote his movie.
I don’t think proposition one is even arguable. He’s on record as you can see in my post above.
I suppose #2 is arguable but it seems pretty evident to me. He was asked if the books promote atheism and he dodged the question.
November 7, 2007 @ 12:55 amWhile I may be concerned about Pullman’s approach, I don’t fear atheism. What is there to love. It is anti-philosophy. This is the literary equivalent of Soviet and Chinese Communism. The church survived both forms of atheistic repression. Modern atheism lacks the one thing that a religious perspective has … a compelling reason to live. I’ve always been more concerned by agnostics who are sitting on the fence. It is less a confrontational position and more a challenge to prove in tangible terms the merits of the Christian faith.
November 7, 2007 @ 6:53 amI may be wrong, but I have my doubts about whether this film will rank among the great fantasy films. There is a world of difference between benevolent witches and the faith of ordinary people caught in a world of fantasy. Even Harry Potter is an ordinary kid with extraordinary gifts, but he is still a kid.
It’s not just Pullman. New Line is really marketing this thing on the back of LOTR, which is a rather unfortunate comparison for those who care about the ideas of the books, as the worldviews are very, very different.
Anything to reach that ever so lucrative “faith community.”
November 7, 2007 @ 7:55 amMatt- what is LOTR?
November 7, 2007 @ 10:43 amLOTR = Lord Of The Rings
November 7, 2007 @ 11:11 amMatt,
I think that’s exactly what they’re doing.
There is some word circulating that they’ve downplayed the atheism for the film (not just in promotion of it). Let’s just say I’m not convinced.
November 7, 2007 @ 12:58 pmScott – Wow, I can’t believe I didn’t know that. Lord of the Rings is my alltime favorite literature. I love the books so much I couldn’t bring myself to see the movies because I knew there was no way they could do justice to them.
November 7, 2007 @ 3:05 pmCarol,
I agree with you about the Lord of the Rings. I would guess that I have read it in the neighborhood 12-15 times over the years since I first read The Hobbit in 1974. But I would actually recommend the movies. Though they did take some license with bits of the story, overall I thought that Peter Jackson did a great job bringing Middle Earth to life. I think Tolkein would have been pleased. Set aside a weekend, set up a big screen projector, and watch them straight through. You won’t regret it.
November 7, 2007 @ 9:32 pm“While I may be concerned about Pullman’s approach, I don’t fear atheism. What is there to love. It is anti-philosophy. This is the literary equivalent of Soviet and Chinese Communism. The church survived both forms of atheistic repression. Modern atheism lacks the one thing that a religious perspective has … a compelling reason to live.
Actually, atheism requires you for you to make your own choice about your reason to live, instead of just trying to…say, get in god’s good graces. Why do you want to live? In fact, most other atheists I know value their life most highly. I think you’ve mistaken atheism for nihilism, which is an extremely depressing way of life.
I’ve always been more concerned by agnostics who are sitting on the fence. It is less a confrontational position and more a challenge to prove in tangible terms the merits of the Christian faith.
A lot of people, you’ll be surprised to find, don’t want to be converted, by you or any other religious person, ’cause chances are, they already know aaaaaaalll about Christianity. They’re happy where they are, and if your god can’t accept that, all-knowing as he be, then, well, he isn’t one I don’t think anyone who isn’t already Christian would want to worship, if he would send a guy to hell for not believing in him. It’s childish, no matter how you spin it.
I may be wrong, but I have my doubts about whether this film will rank among the great fantasy films. There is a world of difference between benevolent witches and the faith of ordinary people caught in a world of fantasy. Even Harry Potter is an ordinary kid with extraordinary gifts, but he is still a kid.”
So…you’re sayin’ to me that matters of faith should never, ever be dealt with or challenged in fantasy films? You just ‘come for the show,’ so to speak? To be entertained, and not made to think, right?
November 7, 2007 @ 9:58 pmI love reading Jo Jack’s post. He comes across as a preacher pounding on a podium, screaming at his wayward flock.
All for the glory of atheism. Classic.
Jo, you should take up biochemistry. Maybe it would change your views. Actually, I’d love to have a guy like you in the lab… braying on and on, but doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. It would be a nice break from the work.
November 8, 2007 @ 11:05 amDid anyone see The Reaping? I’m pretty sure that promoted non-atheism. Did atheists throw a fit? No. Because it’s a movie. And all the promos for The Reaping made it seem like a science fiction film, not a movie promoting religious ideals. But I didn’t come out of that movie with a sudden belief in God.
And as for the comment about 13 year olds having sex, have you read Romeo & Juliet? In case you haven’t, it involves two underage teens who marry without the consent of their parents, have sex, and then commit suicide. Let’s make sure our children don’t read that! And on that note, have you even READ the Bible? It is full of adultery (Abraham, Sarah & Hagar, Genesis), incest (Judah & Tamar, Genesis), rape (Amnon and Tamar, Samuel), child sacrifice (Ezekiel), and many other heinous acts that would cause an uproar if they showed up in any other book or movie intended for children.
But because it’s in the Bible, it’s ok. And what if we switched the words “atheist” and “Christian”? Would you throw a fit then? Probably not. Because you believe in your heart that Christian beliefs are all true. So it’s ok to tell atheists that their beliefs are flawed. Christian missionaries try to undermine atheism every day. Blatantly and worldwide.
But atheists have no right to promote their own ideas and beliefs, most of which are based on science, reasoning, and evidence. When Galileo tried to tell everyone that the Sun was the center of the galaxy, based on his observations using scientific methods, the church tried to destroy him (no wonder he recanted, what a coward and hypocrite!) How dare anyone threaten, undermine, or go against the Christian faith! Where would science be without those who tried to defy faith and instead chose to rely on logic and reason?
What if you tried to speak out against persecuting witches during the Salem Witch Trials? We all know now that witches don’t exist. But they believed it strongly enough to torture and kill innocent women. It was a mass belief. So imagine what reaction you would get if you told them that witches don’t exist. Or wrote a book. Who do you think would be criticized and chastised more, the townspeople who believe in witches, or you?
November 8, 2007 @ 1:43 pmReally? I saw that trailer. It was clearly referring to lists of Biblical plagues. Locusts. Rivers of blood. Not sure how you missed the connection.
Many times. It’s one of the greatest plays ever written, though not even in my top 5 plays by Shakespeare. The difference is that Romeo and Juliet is a play about “star-crossed lovers” from different sides of the tracks (metaphorically). Shakespeare is not trying to teach us that 13 year olds having sex is the key to appreciating life. In Pullman’s case (as with Shakespeare) there is no sex portrayed “on screen” only a kiss, but the clear meaning is that embracing sexuality is striking a blow against the evil, soul-crushing dogmatism of religion. I don’t think 13 year olds make great symbols for sexual liberation, personally. We differ on that I guess.
Not really. There are few places in the world where atheism has enough “market-share” to be undercut. Christians are more likely to be working against Islam, animism or just plain mushy thinking.
On the contrary, you have every right to them. What you don’t have the right to do is lie about your beliefs in order to sell tickets to people. Not while I’m here.
Copernicus had published his heliocentric theory 70 years prior to Galileo. It caused very limited uproar, though it was hotly debated among scholastics. The church did indeed force him to recant and was wrong to do so. Of course this is the same corrupt Catholic church which tried to force Luther to recant. You’ll not find many protestants (like myself) defending the behavior of the medieval Catholic church. They were wrong on many accounts.
Granted I wouldn’t be believed and it might even end badly for me. Now a question for you. What if you tried to speak out against the Little Red Book during Mao’s Cultural Revolution? I can tell you what would have happend. You would have been forced to “kowtow” and likely been sent to a “reeducation camp” where you would never be heard from again.
That was also a “mass belief”, one that killed millions compared to the 16 who died in Salem. Maoism, of course, is founded in atheism. Mass belief is dangerous, and atheists are not immune.
November 8, 2007 @ 2:38 pmAnd there you have it folks. Andrea is what is refered to as a polemicist. More eager and willing to argue any point to the contrary than actually reading the original article and developing a coherent response.
November 8, 2007 @ 2:44 pmOne way to quickly id a polemicist is to look for their frantic hoping from topic to topic, arguing points that have nothing to do with the discussion, exclamation/screaming various points, hyperbole and exaggerating claims.
Word to the wise…. don’t act like Andrea if you have a point you’re trying to make.
Don’t exaggerate to get a point across.
November 8, 2007 @ 2:47 pmDoug,
I’m not exaggerating. Galileo was forced to recant. Luther was also. Galileo did and spent the rest of his life under a fairly comfortable house arrest where he continued to experiment. Luther did not and spent the next several years hiding in Wartburg castle to avoid being killed.
And while I’m not a Catholic basher by any stretch, I don’t think there’s any use arguing the point about the corruption in the medieval church. On this point, I’m convinced Luther was right.
November 8, 2007 @ 2:53 pmDoug,
I did read the original article (thus the comment about 13 year olds and sex). And as for hopping from topic to topic, I think if you actually read what I wrote, you’ll see that all of it has to do with the reasons why atheists sometimes have to downplay or refute their ‘beliefs’ in order to fit in our society and be taken seriously (such as being chastised for not believing in God, historic reasons for not wanting to shout it to the world, etc.) If you can’t see the obvious connections between the last 3 paragraphs, then maybe it’s because I’m just working off of a different belief system than you. As for being a polemicist, thank you. I don’t mind being referred to as someone who can dispute inconsistencies. As for the exclamation/screaming points, perhaps you don’t recognize sarcasm?
As for hyperbole, perhaps you don’t understand what that word means. Which parts were extravagant exaggerations? Christian missionaries trying to combat ungodliness worldwide? That’s true. Atheists not being taken seriously when trying to promote their own ideas or beliefs? Um, I can think of one atheist who is now being lambasted for trying to promote his views to children. Galileo? True story. Salem witch trials as an analogy? Pretty sure they all believed that and killed women. It’s hard for an atheist to explain his/her point to a Christian. Sometimes we have to think of different analogies to get our point across. Should I have compared Christianity to Greek Mythology instead?
As for my word to the wise, please use proper spelling and grammar when trying to make a point. Otherwise, you just look like you’re frantically hopping from word to word.
John,
Thank you for your reasonable and rational responses. When I watched the trailer, it focused on the character’s belief in science over religion, to explain the plagues scientifically, but perhaps I just had a different outlook.
Did Mr. Pullman explain to someone his exact meaning for the sexuality in his book, or is it possible that different people can find different meanings in anything (even Shakespeare)?
Atheism has to defend itself from all religions. I’ve found that religious people tend to be accepting of other peoples’ religions, as long as they HAVE a religion. And I’m still trying to figure out how he’s lying. He’s not exclaiming his atheist beliefs (as most writers don’t exclaim theirs), but I’m not sure that “trying to undermine the Christian church” (by encouraging original thought and the examination of religious beliefs) is the same as “promoting atheism”. Wanting someone to think critically and logically about a subject is not the same as telling them not to believe in it at all. Semantics.
And I’m glad you reinforced my point on “mass belief”. Any belief system should be subject to questioning and disbelief (religious or non-religious). And it can be dangerous to not listen to the rationalities of those who do disagree.
November 8, 2007 @ 4:17 pmI love reading Jo Jack’s post. He comes across as a preacher pounding on a podium, screaming at his wayward flock.
All for the glory of atheism. Classic.
Um, ha ha, what? Wow. Pot. Kettle. Black. You’re like that evangelist preacher from “Jesus Camp.”
Jo, you should take up biochemistry. Maybe it would change your views. Actually, I’d love to have a guy like you in the lab… braying on and on, but doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. It would be a nice break from the work.
Um…again, what? I don’t have a clue about my own beliefs? I think I do. I know that I’m a spiritual atheist (I’ve got elements of Deism, Transcendentalism, and Jainism in there as well, all things I think are right), and I do know that I’ve studied religion for quite a while.
Are you talkin’ about all those ‘instances’ of science where something is ‘just too complex’ to be explained? I’ve always found that people who use this as evidence for god are retarded, frankly.
Say, what are your views on evolution? Just wonderin’?
November 8, 2007 @ 5:43 pmAndrea,
I recognize that atheists sometimes feel put upon and sometimes there is good reason for that. Some of this is inevitable and in fact works out the same where atheists outnumber believers, only in reverse. For my part, I do my best to treat people with respect no matter what they believe. I am however willing to make judgments about people’s behavior (as I think we all should).
No, it’s not. But Pullman has gone beyond asking people to think. He has created a story in which thought inevitably leads to the abandonment and rejection of faith. Hence his trilogy ends with a 13 year old girl literally killing god and discovering sex no longer hampered by shame or guilt. He’s not merely asking people to think, he’s promoting atheism.
Frankly, I think it’s a bit disturbing that a former teacher writes a book about a 13 year old girl learning to abandon religious morality and free herself from sexual “hang-ups.” As a father of two daughters, I hope they are very “hung up” at that age.
November 8, 2007 @ 10:59 pmJo Jack,
Say, what are your views on evolution? Just wonderin’?
What do you think they are?
Also
Explain the degradosome to me then. Explain how the four constituents (exoribonuclease, endoribonuclease, helicase, and enolase) are to used for the purpose of RNA degradation in isolation.
November 9, 2007 @ 7:02 amIt’s funny because that argument is used by those who really don’t know what they are talking about. The idea that teleology in biology is simply an argument of “gosh, it’s just too darn complex”. It’s not just that it’s complex, Jo…. it’s that it is complex and specified to a particular task. NDE leads us to expect a jury-rigged mechanism…. teleology leads us to expect a logic behind each piece that constitutes the degradosome. The role of enolase was confusing to scientists because it doesn’t bind RNA. A non-teleological view would lead one to think, “oh well, it was just cobbled together anyway… there doesn’t need to be a purpose for it’s role”. On the contrary, the teleological view leads on to assume that there should be an underlying logic. After further research the specific role of enolase was discovered. Oh but my bad, I forgot that notions of teleology are science stoppers. Thank God we have that non-teleologic mindset to allow us to sit back comfortably and assume that no role/purpose or function needs to be attributed to enolase.
Doug,
(Speaking of off topic!) What is to be explained about degradosome? We don’t have access to your research, so you might need to explain what exactly we are supposed to explain to you. Degradosome is responsible for the degradation/decay of RNAs. Unlike the other three, enolase didn’t seem to fit in this process (but is possibly used to link?). How is this question too complex to use science instead of religion to figure out? You even said “after further research” the role was discovered. Was this research conducted using scientific or religious methods?
I think you do not understand how non-ID scientists think. Of course they look for reasons why something works the way it does, the same as you do. They just try to explain the reasons using science, instead of religion. The scientists I know do not look at a function that confuses them and say, “not sure, it’s just there, must not be any reason or logic.” If this was the case, why have so many studies been done on the purpose of the appendix? Were all those studies done by scientists only coming from a teleologic viewpoint?
Logic does not apply to religious teleology only. Teleologists believe that there is a final cause or purpose inherent in all beings. Followers of evolution believe in natural selection, which explains why life forms are as complex and complicated as they are. The end result of natural selection the creation of beings best suited for their environment.
Both of these ways of thinking cause the scientist to examine bodily functions and anatomy in order to explain why that being is the way it is. You think God created it. Others think that nature and environment caused it.
Something that always confuses me is the question of why God, being the all-powerful, all-knowing deity that he is, would create such complex designs which are so easily destroyed. If humanity now is the end result of perfect creation, then why are there still so many flaws in the design? Why does the body degenerate? Why cancer? Why pain? Why do some people have twins/double jointedness/sickle cell anemia while others do not? Why are we all so different, especially the physical differences depending on where our ancestors originated from?
And please don’t explain this through the fall from grace in Genesis. That only explains pain in childbirth and the need for men to suffer why they work in the fields in order to eat. Did God change his design just for those purposes to what it is today? And if God is all-knowing, then why was he mad at them for doing what he should have already known they were going to do? If I create a program and know that it will crash, and then when I run the program and it crashes, why should I be mad at the program?
Any answers on this would be greatly appreciated. I grew up attending a Lutheran private school for 9 years, read the Bible top to bottom, and still have never found a logical answer to this.
P.S., I don’t think people who use this method to think of different answers are retarded, if the end result is using science to explain why something works. But to declare “because God made it that way” is just the same as “there’s no purpose whatsoever so I won’t bother looking.”
November 9, 2007 @ 9:41 amJohn,
Have you read the last book (The Amber Spyglass)? There is no downright mention of sex that I could find. The few passages that might allude to it are more tame than prime time television. It deals more with love between the two characters.
Before they knew how it happened, they were clinging together, blindly pressing their faces toward each other.
“Like Mary said,” he whispered, “you know straight away when you like someone, when you were asleep, on the mountain, before she took you away, I told Pan…”
“I heard,” she whispered, “I was awake and I wanted to tell you the same and now I know what I must have felt all the time: I love you, Will, I love you…”
The word love set his nerves ablaze. All his body thrilled with it, and he answered her in the same words, kissing her hot face over and over again, drinking in with adoration the scent of her body and her warm, honey-fragrant hair and her sweet, moist mouth that tasted of the little red fruit. Around them there was nothing but silence, as if all the world were holding its breath…
Next day Will and Lyra went out by themselves again, speaking little, eager to be alone with each other. They looked dazed, as if some happy accident had robbed them of their wits; they moved slowly; their eyes were not focused on what they looked at. They spent all day on the wide hills, and in the heat of the afternoon, they visited their gold-and-silver grove. They talked, they bathed, they ate, they kissed, they lay in a trance of happiness murmuring words whose sound was as confused as their sense, and they felt they were melting with love.
The closest thing to sex I found:
Will put his hand on hers. A new mood had taken hold of him, and he felt resolute and peaceful. Knowing exactly what he was doing and exactly what it would mean, he moved his hand from Lyra’s wrist and stroked the red-gold fur of her daemon. Lyra gasped. But her surprise was mixed with a pleasure so like the joy that flooded through her when she had put the fruit to his lips that she couldn’t protest, because she was breathless. With a racing heart she responded in the same way: she put her hand on the silky warmth of Will’s daemon, and as her fingers tightened in the fur, she knew that Will was feeling exactly what she was. And she knew, too, that neither daemon would change now, having felt a lover’s hands on them. These were their shapes for life: they would want no other. So, wondering whether any lovers before them had made this blissful discovery, they lay together as the earth turned slowly and the moon and stars blazed above them.
And as for those atheist ungodly values it teaches:
Conscious beings make Dust, they renew it all the time, by thinking and feeling and reflecting, by gaining wisdom and passing it on.
“And if you help everyone else in your worlds to do that, by helping them to learn and understand about themselves and each other and the way everything works, and by showing them how to be kind instead of cruel, and patient instead of hasty, and cheerful instead of surly, and above all how to keep their minds open and free and curious… Then they will renew enough to replace what is lost through one window.
Which goes back to my point that (in my view) he’s not advocating the abandonment of faith and values, but rather speaking out against some of the constraints and authoritative power of Christianity and dogma. Yes, he uses allegory to show a different way of thinking about religion. But most of the anti-religion sentiment deals more with the rejection of the power of the (Catholic) church over peoples’ minds and bodies, and not the rejection of a higher presence. Anti-’organized religion’, perhaps.
November 9, 2007 @ 11:22 amAndrea,
Was this research conducted using scientific or religious methods?
Why do you think the scientific method arose? Would it make sense to poke and prod the universe if there was nothing to apprehend? Kind of an odd endeavor to assume the existence of laws that a universe abides by in the event that the universe, at its core, is ultimately void of purpose or structuring.
But regardless, your statment misses the point. It’s not a matter of discarding ‘science’ and replacing it with religion. It’s a matter of broadening sciences scope to include the possibility of design.
You even said “after further research” the role was discovered.
You’re missing the point because you assume that it’s teleology vs. science. It’s not. This is an instance where teleological insight lead to assuming that enolase actually had a role. You do understand that an unguided, step by step process doesn’t have foresight? Therefore, when looking at a molecular ‘machine’ or process it should be assumed that it would have the hallmarks of a jury-rigged process. Not the case with teleology – because we’d assume a very sophisticated machine or process. Therefore, the search for a logic to the existence of enolase in the degradosome.
Hell, even the degradosome as a whole bucks the notion of an unguided process. Because we assumed, in an MS framework, that ancestral organisms should lack sophistication it was hypothesized that RNA degradation was a random process. That any RNA would be attacked by ribonucleases (randomly)… and the only reason why rRNA and tRNA seemed exempt from this was because they quickly folded into a compact structure, not that they weren’t attacked. However, as our ability to probe the cell increased we were able to discover the degradosome. We found out that this process isn’t a random flood of ribonucleases breaking down any RNA that isn’t securely/compactly folded.
The sophistication of the cell and its processes increased. That sophistication increased even more when the role of enolase was elucidated.
And this is only one machine.
November 9, 2007 @ 11:26 amThe trend in biochemistry – assume sophistication.
Sorry for all the (long) posts, but I am sincerely interested in learning your viewpoints on these subjects. John, you said, “He has created a story in which thought inevitably leads to the abandonment and rejection of faith.”
I’m an anthropologist, and I have studied most religions since the beginning of religion. After learning how each religion evolved from the last, and the reasonings behind it, it seemed illogical for me to believe in one religion. I’ve read the Bible, and there are so many inconsistencies in it that I can’t make much sense of that either. I’ve never really felt a profound sense of ‘faith’ or presence of a higher being, even with all the attempts to instill it in me. The more I read/think/learn, the more I don’t believe. I find it fascinating how I am as certain there is no God as you are certain there is. Any ideas as to why this is?
November 9, 2007 @ 11:44 amAndrea,
I want to apologize. You seem alot more open-minded than I was willing to give acknowledgement of in my earlier post. Conversely, I was significantly closed-minded in my earlier posts addressing both you and Jo Jack.
So….
November 9, 2007 @ 12:21 pmsorry about that. For whatever it’s worth.
Doug,
No problem. Topics like this always elicit strong emotions and knee-jerk reactions. I’m not immune either :)
Ironically enough, our viewpoints on how to go about investigating unknowns seems similar. Your God is my Natural Selection. And yes, the body is extremely sophisticated in many ways. But in my view, it needed to become increasingly sophisticated in order to adapt and survive among other increasingly sophisticated beings.
“You do understand that an unguided, step by step process doesn’t have foresight? Therefore, when looking at a molecular ‘machine’ or process it should be assumed that it would have the hallmarks of a jury-rigged process.”
I don’t believe that the human body was just improvised or thrown together. And I don’t consider the creation of the human body a step by step process. It’s not like nature decided it needed humans and started creating them, trying to figure out the best way to create that human.
Take a camera. Someone discovered that images could be recorded. So a crude device was made for this. Maybe someone happened to discover that a defect or extra piece made the camera better. So the old one was tossed out for the new one. And thus it continued to the high tech digital cameras of today. No person decided to just start piecing together a digital camera without even knowing what a camera was or what it could be capable of. And every piece of the camera has a specific design or purpose. I wouldn’t expect to open it up and find a bunch of jury-rigged parts inside.
However, if you give a digital camera to someone who has never seen or heard of a camera, and they assume that it is sophisticated and has a definite purpose, eventually they would figure out what it does. Should they then assume that because it is so sophisticated and good at doing what it does that some deity just came up with it from scratch? Or that if it wasn’t made from scratch, there should be faulty circuits or extra wires or parts that have no purpose but are still used?
November 9, 2007 @ 12:56 pmNo problem. Topics like this always elicit strong emotions and knee-jerk reactions. I’m not immune either
Thanks for being understanding. Greatly appreciated.
Your God is my Natural Selection.
We’ll have to disagree here.
But in my view, it needed to become increasingly sophisticated in order to adapt and survive among other increasingly sophisticated beings.
But this makes it out to seem as if evolution has foresight. However, I’m not so much just refering to human bodily design and adaptation; the degradosome functions with all four constituents in E.coli.
Now, I don’t dispute evolution and I don’t have a problem with common ancestry – but I do have a problem with the mechanism of NS culling RM (just to make my position alittle more clear).
I don’t believe that the human body was just improvised or thrown together.
I think we agree on this point.
And I don’t consider the creation of the human body a step by step process.
But if one were to be taking the position of NDE or Modern Synthesis they should consider it a step by step process. Not that those are your position, but that would be the position that I’m taking issue with.
It’s not like nature decided it needed humans and started creating them, trying to figure out the best way to create that human.
From the position of NDE or MS this would be accurate. When I say step by step process, I mean more of a blind response to environmental pressures – some might be successful some, some might not. Those that are successful pass their genes on to the next generation.
I wouldn’t expect to open it up and find a bunch of jury-rigged parts inside.
I could be missing your point… and if I am, I apologize; however, comparing the purposeful design of cameras to a blind, random (but culled) process that would lead from unicellular prokaryotes to multicellularity seems incorrect. It’s because the latter process is blind and lacks forsight that one would expect the end result to appear jury-rigged and cobbled together. Isn’t this the same argument in favor of NDE when one appeals to vestigial organs or “Junk DNA”?
Should they then assume that because it is so sophisticated and good at doing what it does that some deity just came up with it from scratch?
In both instances though there is the role of causal agency. Whether human intelligence or supernatural design, causal agency is the common denominator. Compounded with the fact that we know that cameras are designed; if one were to discover this camera (not knowing what it was) would they be incorrect to appeal to design because this camera has a level of complexity and specification analogous to something this particular human knows for a fact is designed? Like a stop watch.
Or that if it wasn’t made from scratch, there should be faulty circuits or extra wires or parts that have no purpose but are still used?
Again, I believe that this portion is analogous to what many evolutionary scientists tell us that we should expect in biological systems (vestigial organs, junk DNA, superfluous ‘addendums’ to molecular machines – like enolase).
November 9, 2007 @ 1:34 pmBut there is still a difference. Cameras are ultimately discontinuous; one doesn’t gradually change into another. Evolution on the other hand would be continuous.
Is there a post from me in moderation?
I just submitted a response and nothing came up.
Thanks.
November 9, 2007 @ 1:35 pmDoug,
Rescued from the spam catcher.
November 9, 2007 @ 2:04 pmAndrea,
As I said in one of the comments above, all that is explicit in the book is the kiss. However, I think the scene you excerpted (heavy petting…) is certainly intended to suggest sex to the reader. It’s a metaphor but not a very difficult one to interpret. This sort of thing is done all the time in pop songs. “Dancing”, for instance, is frequently used as a metaphor for sex.
But again, these are ~13 year olds in a book written for ~13 year olds. I’m not comfortable with telling 13 year olds that they should get alone together and start stroking one another’s souls. I’m not sure why you would find that acceptable.
As for promoting atheism, does Lyra kill God in the 3rd volume or not? I don’t care for the term “ungodly” much but I think in this case it’s appropriate. If the heroine kills God to save the world(s), I don’t think you can suggest that Pullman is merely recommending deeper thinking.
November 9, 2007 @ 2:15 pmThanks John!!!!
For a second I thought I accidently deleted it.
November 9, 2007 @ 2:46 pmDoug,
I appreciate your responses, and find it interesting that we do agree on a lot, we just have different ways of getting to those agreements. As I eluded to previously, whether one uses religion or evolution to find an answer to questions shouldn’t matter as long as the answers hold up to scientific standards. And yes, religion and science shouldn’t be thought of as opposites. In my opinion, if a god created everything, then he would have also created science (and perhaps evolution). So using science doesn’t necessarily contradict religion, but should be a method to explain that god’s creation.
As for the camera analogy, it’s the first thing I could think of that could be somewhat compared to evolution. And in my analogy, I have to rely on some imaginative stretches to get my point across. In my world of camera evolution, there is no one designing the camera (with the purpose of improving it). New cameras are created simply by using the same camera design that the user currently has. However, creating new batches of cameras sometimes causes defects/extra parts which makes some of the cameras work better. The users of these cameras have better products and the users of the bad cameras can’t compete so they stop using them. After a while, the cameras that ‘survive’ are the ones with the most ‘defects’ which improved the function they were needed for. And if you stretch that out for thousands of years, the design of the camera gets sleeker and simpler.
Just as in natural selection, those with the best design suited for their environment survived. If there were extra parts that weren’t needed, a new copy that has a defect of not including that part would still survive and work just as well, if not better. The ones that didn’t have needed parts would fail and not be copied. Thus, the final design would be the one that has the fewest required parts which work in harmony with each other according to the best way they function together.
Also, how do you know that these cells are performing the best way possible? Couldn’t there be a simpler process that could be used? If you were to design a human being, would you make it so complex? Why would we need RNA in the first place?
Viruses and bacteria mutate and evolve constantly (hence antibiotic resistant strains). Viruses that kill the host quickly without a chance to spread are eventually wiped out. The viruses that either keep the host alive longer or make the host more prone to spread it (sneezing, coughing, etc) are the ones that stay around to replicate and multiply. This is one hypothesis for why the HIV/AIDS strain in the US is less virile than the one in Africa. In Africa, it is passed around more often and doesn’t need to keep the host alive long in order to spread. In the US, especially with the use of condoms, the virus that kills the host before it spreads won’t survive, thus producing strains that aren’t as potent. Both of these viruses are perfectly designed to survive in the environment they are in.
November 9, 2007 @ 3:03 pmJohn,
I’m sorry, but I got a kick out of your response. If you’ve spent much time around 13 year old girls recently, you’d find that ‘stroking souls’ is one of the tamer things they could be discussing. What children (even younger than 13) are doing these days is far worse than what I would have even thought of (or known about) when I was 13. Not discussing sex won’t keep them from discussing or experimenting with it among themselves. They are bombarded with sex constantly, in tv, movies, ads, magazines, etc. So I’m certain that most 13 year olds these days know what sex is. All the ones I know do know about it, whether they act on that knowlege or not. And perhaps an allusion to sex in a book is a good way to discuss sex with children who are (too quickly) entering puberty and young adulthood. Unfortunately, teen sex happens, whether you agree with it or not. The only thing we can do is discuss and teach and hope they make the right decisions.
From my take, she doesn’t kill “God”. I inferred that she was killing a figure that represented the power and control of the Church and organized religions which don’t promote thoughts that go against their own faith. Maybe it’s me, but at no point did I think that any of the characters really represented a higher supernatural power (God), but rather they represented the human concepts of religion. And when I say religion, I mean organized religion, not faith. I thought he was making the point that we should not give up control and rational thought to higher human powers that enforce religion, but rather make our own decisions based on the reasoning, understanding, and any spiritual presence we feel. It’s not ‘god is dead, now you’re free to do whatever you want’, but rather ‘the power of the church is gone now so you can (and have to) start thinking for yourself and try to become a better person through knowledge and enlightenment instead of simply going to church’
November 9, 2007 @ 3:32 pmFor full disclosure, I don’t have a fondness for the Christian religion as I’ve experienced it. It tends to make people feel guilty and badly about themselves for being human. This is one of the reasons I hated church. I thought it was ridiculous to sit in a building for 2 hours just to be constantly scolded and told how evil I inherently am and how I’m always sinning. Who needs that? That being said, there are some churches who only promote togetherness and greatness in life and self, which I think is what churches should do.
I find most religious Christian authorities offensive and contradictory to the actual teachings of the Bible. My disagreement lies mainly with religion, not the belief in God. If people want to believe in God and Jesus, I think that’s great. Jesus taught many great things in the Bible (most of which are completely disregarded or misconstrued these days). If everyone acted as Jesus did, this world would be a better place. And even Jesus wasn’t fond of higher religious authority figures or churches.
I do think Christians need to start thinking for themselves instead of taking what the church says as an absolute truth. Always taking everything on faith despite lack of or contrary evidence is dangerous. (I won’t even mention the political similarities with this idea). If your faith is strong and true, then any research should only confirm your beliefs. If it doesn’t, then maybe you should re-think your beliefs (this doesn’t mean stop believing in God, just stop believing in everything the church tells you).
I think this is where atheism gets distorted by Christians. Am I anti-religion? In some cases, yes. Anything that doesn’t allow different opinions or thoughts or questions is dangerous. Am I anti-God? No. I just don’t believe in one, but if you want to, go for it. I think this is why we have differing viewpoints on the statements Pullman made.
November 9, 2007 @ 4:00 pmAndrea,
While I agree with most of your analysis about the reality for 13 year old girls, I suppose I’m a little less sanguine about it than you seem to be.
In any case, we seem to have shifted from talking about what Pullman meant to how it might become a “teaching moment.” My point is simply that I don’t like the message. I don’t think it helps the, as you put it, unfortunate situation of teen and pre-teen sex to tell kids this is how we save the world. No, not really, Mr. Pullman. Not at all in fact.
On the other point, I think you’re bending over backwards to avoid the obvious meaning of Pullman’s narrative. Pullman himself is a materialist. He is not just anti-Christianity or even anti-organized religion he is explicitly anti-faith of any kind. He thinks it is all bunk (as do you I suppose).
So it stretches credibility to claim he is presenting some vague middle position toward faith (one which he himself does not believe) or that he’s not really killing god when in fact that’s exactly what he has done.
Pullman mythologized his own atheistic perspective, just as Lewis did with his perspective in Narnia. But again, what prompted my post was Pullman’s sudden decision to deceive people about what his perspective is and what the books are about.
November 9, 2007 @ 4:20 pmAndrea,
When Pullman said in 2001
does that not back up John’s entire post here? I am not sure how you can read that and come to any other conclusion.
…and when he said:
Who are “they” and these “people” he is referring to?
I am sorry, but John’s post is right-on.
***
As far as you comments regarding teen sex, why on earth would I (as a parent) want to promote/condone it in the eyes of my 12 year old son? You say it may “open up a discussion about sex, which needs to happen anyway”. Yes, it could – but it should happen anyway, I don’t need a fictional book that glamorizes it to do so. If I do, I am not taking my parental role very seriously.
Yes, we are bombarded with sex on t.v., in the movies, and on the radio, but in all of those instances (as a mother of two boys) I regulate what they should and should not watch, and what they should and should not listen to. Just as my mother did when I was that age. I can still remember her hitting the buttons with lightning speed in the car to another radio station, when certain Rod Stewart songs would come on. That doesn’t mean she didn’t discuss sex with me, that doesn’t mean that I didn’t go over to my friend’s house and listen to the album anyway, but I knew that my mother didn’t condone me listening to it, and it firmed up what I knew to be her moral guidelines for me. I understood her stance clearly, and it shaped my actions as I grew up. Now, 25 years later, my moral compass guides the teaching of my own children.
Your argument for Pullman’s books comes across as weak. You may not mean it to sound this way, but it has the “but everyone is doing it” rationale…
–This doesn’t mean that it is o.k. I am a 5th grade teacher, and I have heard pretty much everything, but I am not going to stand by silently and allow it to not be corrected.
–Yes, true, but again doesn’t mean that we should give the media a green light and suggest that it is o.k. You can not argue that seeing it on t.v., and in the movies, does NOT give it a sense that it is o.k. This goes the same for parents allowing their children to see it, that gives them a direct thumbs-up, from those who guide them.
–We agree here, but I think we disagree on how to teach them. Society is full of parents who are not being parents. Not guiding and protecting. Being a parent isn’t about being permissive, or about being cool, it is a difficult job that goes against what Hollywood says is o.k.
The MPAA rating that is deemed “age appropriate” doesn’t get a blind nod in our home.
In the end parents still have to be parents.
November 9, 2007 @ 6:04 pmPullman gave a very interesting article to Third Way magazine a few years ago. I highly recommend it.
He claims not to know whether Will and Lyra consummate their relationship or not. There also seems to be some inconsistency about his feelings towards Lewis
and further on “I rate him very highly, but I do detest what he was doing in his fiction.”
It’s a very informative interview, and well worth the read to get an insight into who Pullman really is.
My feeling, for what it’s worth, is that Lyra did kill off ‘God’ as Pullman sees him, but not God as I recognise Him. I found the passage deeply troubling until I just decided that it was an impostor. The National Theatre in London dramatised the whole trilogy in two three hour plays, which we saw in one day three years ago. It was the most captivating theatrical experience of my life, but I did feel uncomfortable at the age of some of the children there to see it.
For that reason alone, I shall probably avoid the movies.
November 10, 2007 @ 5:07 amKeith,
Thanks for the tip. I’ll check it out.
I don’t believe for a moment that he doesn’t know whether they consummated their relationship. Of course if they did not do so, he could just say as much. The fact that he’s being coy really says it all.
November 10, 2007 @ 4:34 pmPerhaps I’m just a little too credulous at times, but what he seems to be saying is that the story wants to be told and he acts as a sort of conduit. So he doesn’t claim to have made the story up and decided what bits to tell, he just writes it as it ‘comes to him’.
It’s certainly not a line I haven’t heard from other authors. I’m not the biggest fan of Pullman as a person, so I shan’t defend him to the hilt, or anything, but that kind of rang true to me.
November 11, 2007 @ 4:21 amKeith,
I think I read the book the same way. “God” wasn’t “God” but rather a symbol for something else. (Besides, why would he kill something that he believes doesn’t even exist? Wouldn’t killing something give it credibility of its existence?)
Also, what’s wrong with wanting readers to make their own decisions on what happened in the book? I obviously read it differently than most people here, so why should he point blank tell the readers which way was the correct way, if there even is a correct way? Should we get mad at every author who just writes what they feel at the time, and then choose to be vague on what it actually means? I like the concept of letting different readers extract their own meanings from the book. It’s not a how-to manual, it’s fiction. Fantasy fiction at that.
As for children watching it, that’s up to the parents to decide. Personally, I think any religious allegories will be lost on young children, (we can’t even agree on what they mean here) but perhaps you think differently. There’s a great site out there for parents which reviews media and states what content could be objectionable for children. http://www.commonsensemedia.org
November 12, 2007 @ 10:06 amAndrea,
Apparently you saw Pullman’s books as essentially agreeing with your take, i.e. anti-authority not anti-God per se. That’s fine if you want to take it that way. I would just ask you to face up to the fact that Pullman himself does not agree with you. He is not merely anti-authority, he wants to undercut the basis for the Christian faith, to make it impossible or unthinkable to believe.
In other words, there is a difference between what you believe and what he believes. I’m merely saying I think he’s more likely to be presenting his own beliefs than yours. But I agree it can’t be proven absolutely from the text.
November 12, 2007 @ 12:39 pmHi Andrea,
Thanks for the response. Very insightful as well.
One quick comment though:
Regarding bacterial anti-resistance the dominant way to view this was: There is a constant flow of random mutations in the bacterial genome. With a population size as large as bacterium populations, one of the members of this population should/will have randomly stumbled upon a solution to an environmental insult (some anti-biotic). So, that when the antibiotic is administered to this bacterial population some will already have a solution to it – allowing their genes to be passed on to future generations.
As with the degradosome, as soon as our technology allows us to poke and prod on a deeper level we are presented with a picture that challenges the established orthodoxy.
November 12, 2007 @ 4:43 pmWhen a bacterium is exposed to some environmental insult (chemical or physical antibiotic) the DNA becomes damaged. There is a protein that loops around the bacterial DNA (forming a cylinder) – this protein is called RecA. RecA ‘notices’ the damage and then it interacts with a repressor protein called LexA. LexA represses a variety of genes. RecA causes LexA to break up, releasing the repression of these genes. The expression of these genes leads to a coordinated response to this damage. The 1st wave response is repair enzymes (trying to correct the problem, setting it right again), if this is unsuccessful the next wave occurs which is recombination enzymes. Recombining the DNA in various ways to find a solution to this problem. If this fails their is another response – intentional mutations; the cell creates enzymes for the purpose of making mutations along the DNA (again, to find a solution to the antibiotic).
The LexA protein represses the SOS response. A coordinated, heirarchal response to this antibiotic.
Again the theme of sophistication is vindicated.
John,
I concede. I didn’t know too much about who Pullman was before I read his books, so I guess I took the viewpoint of my own beliefs, rather than looked for what he might have intended to state. That being said, I still didn’t clearly and accurately absorb the points he intended to make, so I guess he could have done a better job.
On a brighter note, look at all the discussion and thoughtful debate he promoted. This is why I think it’s good to stir up a little controversy once in a while. People need to be challenged on their belief systems every once in a while just to get them to sincerely think about why they believe in what they do. Blind faith helps no one. And I’m open to new ways of thinking. I just need logic and evidence to believe in something. But if I pray to win the lottery, and I win the next day, I’ll be the first one at church on Sunday!
J/K. I’m completely open to the idea of a higher power/presence existing. I don’t believe that power is anything like the God in the Bible (or any other religion) however. I think God has been too anthropomorphized. If there’s something out there, it will be something that none of us could imagine. And perhaps one day science will lead us to this unifying power.
November 13, 2007 @ 12:04 pmAndrea,
It’s been good talking with you.
I hope you don’t let go of your hope. As a former atheist myself, I remember feeling similarly. Not that you’d necessarily follow the path I have, though to be honest I think it’s best.
November 13, 2007 @ 12:29 pmDoug,
Probably a long shot, but have you ever researched hypocretin-2 protein before?
November 14, 2007 @ 8:03 amI haven’t, sorry.
November 14, 2007 @ 10:44 amI know about it though; and I know someone who is pretty familiar with it (and who may have researched it).
Did you have any question in particular?
No particular questions, I’ve just been doing research on narcolepsy (which I have). It’s not common, so there’s little research out there. I’m examining the role (or non-role) that hypocretin/orexin has in narcolepsy and temp/metabolism regulation. I will admit how truly fascinating and complex the body is at the micro-level. It’s amazing how one little protein/peptide can impact so many functions.
November 15, 2007 @ 9:22 amok….so i havent read the books or seen the movie yet. I am a christian and this is what i have to say about this. 1. This series is makebelieve….just like harry potter….or cinderella….nobody is bashing cinderella……but i think that the christian faith would get much more accomplished if we would quit worrying about what other people are writing and making movies about, and get out and witness…..im just sayin. its easy to say things over a computer screen….
December 8, 2007 @ 5:53 pmBully for Pullman!! I can’t believe the stink this movie is getting from the Christian right… even as it comes to theatres in it’s current homogenized version. It’s about time people start discussing the ethics and implications of “brainwashing” children with religious dogma. Atheism is not satanism.. it is sobriety folks. Children should be taught ethics, a sense of responsibility, and above all how to reason honestly in preparation for their adult life. Indoctrinating the unformed mind of a child into a religious belief system (formed and written by the hand of MAN) before he has the ability to question and reason effectively should be seen for what it truly is… brainwashing.
December 16, 2007 @ 3:26 pm