Carl's Maundering Blog

Today I found the article "Identity Crisis" by Philip Pullman, in the context of a discussion about an upcoming movie based on one of his fantasy novels. There's some controversy about it over claims that its content is pro-atheist and anti-Christian.

Some of my thoughts after reading Identity Crisis:

Pullman claims, "What we are is not in our control." I can only partially acknowledge that as true; I claim that, in the pre-existence before this life, we were very much in control of what we became in this life.

Pullman claims, "What we do is morally significant. What we are is not." I claim that we are spirit children of God, and that fact by itself has moral significance.

Pullman claims, "Belief or faith is partly the result of temperament. I may be temperamentally inclined to scepticism, you to belief in supernatural forces. As far as the temperamental component of our beliefs is concerned, I am not to be praised or blamed for my scepticism, nor you for your faith. It's when we act on a belief that praise or blame comes in." (That's the first time I noticed that the British spell "skepticism" differently.) I sense danger in this philosophy regarding "temperament," in that I sense that Pullman is implicitly assuming our temperament is an immutable component of "what we are." It isn't. Faith in Jesus Christ leads to repentance, which is something we do, and which modifies our our temperament. Of course, there are other ways to express faith, but repentance is the fundamental way we Christians "act on a belief." The notion that temperance is an unchangeable aspect of what we are is a cowardly crutch leaned on by the unrepentant. Also, what is the analogue to repentance for the skeptic? Just as faith leads to repentance, does doubt also lead to temperament-modifying actions? Or perhaps, temperament-cementing inactions? Anyway, as far as praise or blame regarding our temperament, it is our opportunity to change, improve, and refine our temperament that makes us responsible for it. In other words, I am accountable for my temperament, and Mr. Pullman is accountable for his, despite is claims otherwise.

Pullman claims: "So, 'being,' in the eyes of many people, apparently has its own moral quality, which may be good or bad, but which is resistant to any form of change except the miraculous (being born again). 'Being' trumps 'doing.'" My response: I include my eyes among the many people. Furthermore, repentance is the key to reversing it to "doing" trumps "being." Yes, the resistance to change is there, so repentance is hard work, but that doesn't make repentance any less miraculous.

Pullman refers to a religious lobby in Britain that uses the word "faith" as an adjective instead of a noun. This etymology is completely foreign to me; I have always been taught "faith is a principle of action," "faith is a principle of power," "faith without works is dead," and "I will show thee my faith by my works." These teachings have always led me to consider faith as a verb. (Grammatically, it's clearly not a verb, so I guess I'll call it a "verb in disguise").

Obviously, Pullman and I see the matter differently. I think his essay is very valuable; it's lucidly written, and I found a lot of thoughts in it to agree with (the paragraphs above are points of disagreement). It motivated me to organize my own thoughts to write this rebuttal.