Pullman on Censorship

[f4f3]

Well worth reading is Phillip Pullman's reaction to his book "The Golden Compass" being one of the "most challenged" books in US libraries, and the fact that it's challenged on "Religious Viewpoint".

I think his concluding remarks are worth quoting in full;

"Religion, uncontaminated by power, can be the source of a great deal of private solace, artistic inspiration, and moral wisdom. But when it gets its hands on the levers of political or social authority, it goes rotten very quickly indeed. The rank stench of oppression wafts from every authoritarian church, chapel, temple, mosque, or synagogue – from every place of worship where the priests have the power to meddle in the social and intellectual lives of their flocks, from every presidential palace or prime ministerial office where civil leaders have to pander to religious ones.

My basic objection to religion is not that it isn't true; I like plenty of things that aren't true. It's that religion grants its adherents malign, intoxicating and morally corrosive sensations. Destroying intellectual freedom is always evil, but only religion makes doing evil feel quite so good."

Comments

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

There ain't a word of that I disagree with.

The destruction of intellectual freedom is just as prevalent from non-religious sources though, and they've got all the power they need.

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

I think it's also worth pointing out that there's a huge difference between faith and religion. Something else science doesn't seem to have gotten its head round. Which is odd, given that it's the opposite of one of them, and yet predicated on the other.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Science isn't the opposite of religion - that's like saying Football is the opposite of Rugby. They're two ways of looking at the world, and there's no reason why they should be mutually exclusive - it's just that if you try to mix the two of them, I'd call foul pretty quickly.

But where "faith" is defined as "something accepted as fact which is not susceptible to proof", then I can safely say that is the opposite of science. Anything unproved in science is a theory, until there's some proof. If a theory is shown not to fit the facts, it gets junked pretty quickly.

Something in which you have faith can never be proved wrong, no matter what facts are uncovered.

Unless you're equating my faith that, say, the results of the COBE mission experiments were reported accurately, and conformed to predictions made about the Big Bang, is the same as a religious persons faith that Jesus rose from the dead?

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

I'm saying (as I have done before) that scientists have faith in the scientific approach; in their perceptions and interpretations of the results of their experiments, and above all in those that went before them having followed those same sound principles, often in circumstances where it didn't serve them to do so. They choose not to seek proof of their basic premises because they see no need to. The fact that it seems a smaller leap than some of Christianity's teachings makes it no less one of faith.

My definition of faith is not of an unchallengable, unchangable knowledge; more one that is chosen rather than proven, and which, just like scientific fact is open to change - but when I choose to change it, not when I choose to persue or select evidence, or indeed when someone else decides to change it.

You know I think that's the most lucidly I've ever managed to articulate that.

Religion, on the other hand, actively resists challenge and change, for that threatens its very existence. Faith (in my book - small b) is open to change, it's just not under any obligation to do so because one of its inputs decides to decry the others.

On the basics I think we agree - the football/rugby analogy is one I've used in the past, as a way of indicating that both scientists and religious people often insist there's only one game in town and expect the other to play by the rules of a passtime contrary to their skill and claim a victory when they win. Hardly any honour in that victory. I, however, believe that the games and the rules are all there to be raided, and playing only one game severely restricts the options. I live in the middle ground here, and it's our voice that's so rarely heard over those of the zealots - on all sides.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I think you're right - we do agree on some basics. So take the following in the spirit in which it's intended (is there an emoticon for "evil laugh"? There should be.

"I'm saying (as I have done before) that scientists have faith in the scientific approach; in their perceptions and interpretations of the results of their experiments, and above all in those that went before them having followed those same sound principles, often in circumstances where it didn't serve them to do so. They choose not to seek proof of their basic premises because they see no need to."

Sorry, and with all due respect, but that's utter bollocks. For one thing, if you attempt to build a scientific premise on invalid foundations, you get the same result as if you try to build the Empire State on sand - it falls down, pretty quickly. Then you go back, test your foundations and rebuild. There isn't a "basic premise" in science that hasn't been tested a thousand times. Unless, and again, you have a different definition of "basic premise" than mine.

"My definition of faith is not of an unchallengable, unchangable knowledge; more one that is chosen rather than proven, and which, just like scientific fact is open to change - but when I choose to change it, not when I choose to persue or select evidence, or indeed when someone else decides to change it."

That's a nice definition. I like it, and I respect you for holding it. But you must know that it is directly antithetical to the Christian tradition of faith, and to the definition that any Christian would use? (I'm saying Christian, because I've been indoctrinated with their Catechism - I don't mean to imply that I believe in them any less than any other religion).

It also means, of course, that I have no argument with you here. Nobody, not me, the Pope or Thomas Edison, should be entitled to change your beliefs one jot or tittle. I respect them entirely, while not sharing them.

As far as I know, you aren't denying anyone else the right to their beliefs, or attempting to put yours forward as a literal truth for the interpretation of the world (which, of course, you're entirely within your rights to do).

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

Each basic premise may have been tested a thousand times; but has it been tested by every scientist who's based a supposition, theory or test result on it? Science builds on what went before - it's how the thing works.

And yes, I am fully and totally aware that my definition of faith is a million miles away from that of a Christian (actually I'm quite proud of that). A Christian's faith is based in their religion; mine is not. It's based on my experiences, which I don't assume are in any way empirical or objective.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I think you've encapsulated my point perfectly:

"Science builds on what went before - it's how the thing works."

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

And therein lies the crux of our difference in outlook; to you 'what went before' is proven fact; to me 'what went before' is believed and assumed.

Whose round is it?

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I don't know, but mine's a large one.

[anthrokeight.livejournal.com]

Amen.

She said, using religious terms to support secular intellectualism.

Also, I think part of the problem I have with faith=good, religion=bad, or religion=bad cause it corrupts or whatever is that these POVs make narrow a very broad experience.

I couldn't DO "I am not religious but I am spriitual." I need community, and I need an intellectual and social history to understand what "spiritual" means. (see: Kate isn't sure how she feels about the existence of God/ let the mystery be, but goes to mass anyway because she thinks its worth struggling over)

But Amen, anyway, Pullman.

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

*...is beginning to believe his lack of reliance on the rest of the world for context is probably pretty unusual*

[anthrokeight.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'd say so.

But I am probably much more context and influence-of-group oriented than most Americans and Europeans. It's the academic field- it ruins you, really.

[fugney.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking lately that the problem with religion (and not just religion) is how much it centers around loyalty. I think that messes things up deeply in many, many ways.

[meredyth-13.livejournal.com]

Can I get that on a tshirt?