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

[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.