I've seen quite a bit of negative publicity for the novel and upcoming movie distributed by the Catholic church and through emails sent by friends and family. If I wasn't into scifi/fantasy myself, I would probably buy into what I have seen thusfar, but...I just can't let it go.

Not to get into a moral or religious debate here, but if any of you have read the novel or seen/read/heard the negative publicity, would you be willing to "dumb down" the issues that are in the book/series that are so bad? I'm not sure I'm getting why there is a controversy surrounding the novel when all books should make the reader think and question his/her reality and grow intellectually.

My 8 year old step-daughter is into scifi/fantasy and I have been vacillating about purchasing the novel set for her.

I just know that you folks are an educated bunch who do not pull-punches when it comes to giving your opinion in regard to matters about words.

quote:

if any of you have read the novel or seen/read/heard the negative publicity, would you be willing to "dumb down" the issues that are in the book/series that are so bad?

I'll take a shot: it's heretical. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Actually, it's not until the third book of the series that things start getting seriously heterodox, but to say much more would be giving away the plot. Have you read it?

No, not yet. I've been debating reading it knowing that I SHOULD before I decide to give something controversial as a gift. She is my step-daughter and we do sometime have issues with what we let her do versus what she's allowed to do/watch with her mom and step-dad. Our school's book fair is this week. I'll pick up the book and start reading it. I just didn't know if there were any major red flags that I should be looking for.

My ultimate thought is that if I read it and she reads it, we can discuss it and it would allow her the opportunity to work on her critical thinking skills (which she needs some work on anyway).

Thanks for the info, Neveu. I appreciate it. As a scifi/fantasy fan, in theory should it be a good book to read? I've seen the movie previews and it looks interesting.

Oh my goodness...
All the press has caused quite a flurry of activity by media specialists and principals here in Clayton County. The e-mail was sent to all the media specs about this dangerous, blaphemous book. Supposedly it advocates the killing of God. Supposedly this book is written by a very public aetheistic aetheist. Our principal has requested that we get the books off the shelves. We can't "ban" the books, per se, but, if they are not in the kids view and never apparently available for check-out, no one will inadvertantly read them.

Now, I have never read the book myself, but looking through one of the bookcases the other day (we have several) I actually found a copy of the book that my sister had given to my son as a present in 1996. Her inscription in the front is that he just HAS to read this "incredible" book. (From it's crisp pages and non-torn cover, I'd say it's a safe bet, he never did.) Anyway, this from my sister who goes to church every Sunday. I don't think the first book really gets into any killing of God and it's set in an alternate reality, so, no matter what the underlying beliefs of the author; I don't think they shine through his writing. At least not in book 1.

I am going to read it just to see if all the fuss is worth it. I think my own religious beliefs are strong enough to withstand any subliminal subversiveness.

Thanks, TrossL.

Wild stuff, wild stuff. OK, so if we are talking alternate realities and parallel universes, I'm definitely getting a copy and reading it. Even if the author is an atheist, doesn't it beg the question...do the parents of the kids who are so worried about them reading this book series not talk to their children about what they are reading? I would think this would provide a platform for open communication and expanding and strengthening any other religious beliefs (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc., etc., etc.) in the home. Just my humble opinion.

Thanks again for sharing!

Dunk, for what it's worth, which mighht not be much, the idea of parallel universes loses out on the basis of the principle that something is very likely to be untrue if there's no evidence for it

the idea of parallel universes loses out on the basis of the principle that something is very likely to be untrue if there's no evidence for it

Which hasn't stopped some academic physicists, e.g., Professor Max Tegmark of MIT, from writing about the multiple theories of parallel universes. It was his paper, "Parallel Universes" (PDF) that introduced the term Hubble volumes (aka Hubble spheres) to me. Fun reading for any skiffy fans, young or old. When I studied folklore, I was especially interested in theories (aka myths) of cosmology.

quote:

Supposedly it advocates the killing of God.

Not exactly. It describes the killing of the Creator, but it's a gnostic Creator, fwiw.

quote:

Supposedly this book is written by a very public aetheistic aetheist.

True.

quote:

and it's set in an alternate reality.

Not exactly. The first book takes places in a parallel universe, but the second book begins in our universe (and includes a number of others).

quote:

As a scifi/fantasy fan, in theory should it be a good book to read?

It's an excellent series to read (there are three books). They are inspired by modern physics. The title of the series, "His Dark Materials", is from Milton, and refers to dark matter. Parallel universes and the nature of consciousness also play a big part. But so does mythology and religion.

The main character (this isn't a spoiler, because you learn it on the first page of the first book) lives in a universe where everyone's consciousness takes a physical, animal form called their daemon, a word sure to push some people's buttons, particularly if you only read the first page. At first I thought it was merely a rhetorical device that lets the author display inner voices and character, but in the middle of the book something, er, bad happens, and I felt horrified, and I realized I had completely bought into a reality with daemons. They are very well written books.

Very interesting. I don't worry much about spoilers, so I appreciate your candidness. I'll be picking up the first book tomorrow.

quote:

the idea of parallel universes loses out on the basis of the principle that something is very likely to be untrue if there's no evidence for it

There are many, many things for which there is no evidence but about which millions of people hold strong, even fanatical, beliefs.

Ah, I hadn't realised that "Golden Compass" was the US title of "Northern Lights" so I didn't realise I'd read it.

I have read the trilogy and I thought at the time that there were elements of it that fundamental religious types might object to. In fact I remember thinking that it pointed up the difference between Christian and Islamic reactions to things they find objectionable. In its way, it might be considered as contentious as The Satanic Verses but no one ever, to my knowledge, called for the beheading of Philip Pullman.

The problem isn't, as I see it, with the theology per se but rather that some might object to the use of God and other Biblical characters as fictional characters. (On the other hand there are any number of films - Oh God, Bruce Almighty etc etc that use God as a fictional character.)

In my opinion the books are extremely well written and plotted not to mention thoughtful and intellegent with massive dollops of science and theology blended seamlessly together. I thought they were terrific and, given that it came third in a BBC series about the nations best books (Behind Lord of the Rings and Pride And Prejudice), it seems that many others agree with me.

It knocks spots off Harry Potter.

My only criticism is that the third volume is rather too long and could usefully have either been split in two or condensed.

A word of caution. You can't read just one volume. It isn't separate stories - as is by and large the case with Harry Potter - it is one single long story arbitrarily broken into separate volumes.

As with Bob, I hadn't realised the title had been changed in the US. Unlike Bob, I haven't read the series. However, as Bob says, it came third in a BBC poll and is highly regarded over here.

I've not read a bad review of it although some have mentioned the criticism of organised religion in the text, and that it would be abhorrent to religious fundamentalists. The Archbishop of Canterbury over here specifically praised it as being against dogmatism, not Christianity itself.

From what I've read an 8-year-old might be a little young to be able to appreciate the book properly, and might be scared by parts. That depends on the 8-year-old herself, though.

Kudos, folks. I appreciate all of the candidness about the work. Bob, thanks for letting me know that it really one continuous work.

E

Incidentally we did discuss these books before in this thread, when the BBC was doing the series.

I think it's a fantastic series. I suppose it might upset some people, in the same way that Harry Potter upsets some people. It's way better than Harry Potter imo.

Bob,

Sorry I didn't do a search before I started the thread. My apologies.

Emily

You wouldn't have found it. At the time the US title was never mentioned. There's nothing wrong with starting new threads on old topics. Around here so many of us have rotten memories it happens all the time. I only remembered it after I'd replied to you.
Anyway, there is my full review of the books written right after I read them somewhere in that thread. Hope it helps.

Thanks, Bob. I'll look for it. I have "Mommy Brain" with two little ones (1 and 3 years). I don't remember anything unless I write it down, AND make myself a note on where I put where I wrote it!

Ahhh...I smell a Monday coming.

I'd forgotten all about that thread, too, Bob. It was great fun re-reading it!

quote:

My ultimate thought is that if I read it and she reads it, we can discuss it and it would allow her the opportunity to work on her critical thinking skills (which she needs some work on anyway).

I think this is the key phrase, SciFi. If you're going to read it together and then talk about it, IMHO, nothing is going to be a bad choice. Of course, her age and maturity may mean you'll want to wait a year or two on some books. I don't think that any book written is "too dangerous" for my son to read. If I disagree with the theology or main point of a book, we can discuss it and talk about why I might disagree and all of that.

Many Fundamentalist Christian people would disagree with me, but, as a believing Christian person, I feel that I have nothing to fear from the writings of my fellow humans. I find it slightly embarrassing that others of my faith have so little regard for the strength of the truth they believe in that they can't stomach challenges from writers of fiction.

Regarding killing a deity, what's the big fuss? It's a common theme in many religions - including christianity! The only one I can think of which didn't include a resurrection was when the Greeks knocked off Kronos.

quote:

Regarding killing a deity, what's the big fuss?

I seem to recall that it's a central theme in the world's most popular book - the Bible.

quote:

Originally posted by neveu:

quote:

Supposedly it advocates the killing of God.

Not exactly. It describes the killing of the Creator, but it's a gnostic Creator, fwiw.

Yes. And the character who wants to kill the creator is not the good guy.

The books are about original sin, and the idea that original sin is good and the source of human curiosity and creativity. They're not atheistic books. I'd say they were gnostic.

That's quite a difference (atheistic vs. gnostic), goofy.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

the idea of parallel universes loses out on the basis of the principle that something is very likely to be untrue if there's no evidence for it

There are many, many things for which there is no evidence but about which millions of people hold strong, even fanatical, beliefs.

Most religion falls in the category. Anyone wishing to discuss the metaphysics of it, I'm dalehileman@verizon.net

quote:

Most religion falls in the category.

Actually I would say that ALL religion does.

quote:

the idea of parallel universes loses out on the basis of the principle that something is very likely to be untrue if there's no evidence for it

Leaving religion out of this, I come upon this every day in my work. In healthcare we must base assessment, planning, management, and evaluation on the evidence. As a scientist, I certainly see the how essential that is. Sackett's widely accepted definition of evidence-based healthcare is realistic; it addresses the integration of the best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values. That is, there isn't always evidence on everything (thus the need for expert opinion), and even when there is, decisions need to be based on the balance of patient values and preferences.

However, this notion of "needing the evidence" can be used for manipulative or self-centered agendas. For instance, if organizations or administrators don't want to make changes, they say, "Where's the evidence for that?" Literally, we had a nursing program ask for the evidence that nursing students need to have experiences with actual patients before they graduate. What kind of idiocy is that?

So when people make comments like that quote above, I become skeptical. Not everything can be based on good evidence, and expert or consensus opinion would be acceptable. As I've said here before, the highest evidence is not even available for cigarettes causing disease. Since the highest evidence includes randomized controlled trials, and that would be a completely unethical design for cigarette smoking, we have to rely on preponderance of evidence.

BTW, show me the evidence that epicaricacy isn't a word. [See my point?]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

I like the idea of randomised controlled trials for nursing students. You could, for next years student nurse intake, teach half of them without contact with patients and then, throughout, say, the first five years of their careers monitor how many patients die while under their care compared to those taught with patient contact.

I think this should have been suggested to the person asking for evidence.

The worrying scenario is that he might have accepted it.

Incidentally, back on topic, SciFiJUnkie, if you are around, did you ever get round to reading the book? If so what did you think?

Beliefs should be what people hold in the absence of evidence. It is my impression though, that once a belief is held sufficiently firmly, evidence - or lack of evidence - will not sway the holder of the belief. Indeed, I sometimes feel that the absence of evidence will even strengthen the belief. And contrary evidence will often not weaken it.

Kalleh's experience is common amongst those who wish to deny a fact by citing lack of evidence in a particular area - regardless of how much evidence there might be in another area. I remember some Jehovah's Witnesses who were discussing evolution with me (they believe in Biblical creation) and one of them, in order to disprove the theory of evolution said, "If the theory of evolution is true, how come there is no hybrid between a man and a fish?" In other words, because this particular piece of evidence is missing, then the whole theory is rubbish - despite the ample alternative evidence that does exist.

In fact, I was unable to counter that argument at the time but I now know what I should have done - used the power of the question. Had I asked, "Where, in the theory of evolution, does it state that there should be a cross between a man and a fish?" Since the JW's hadn't even read Darwin's work, they would certainly have not been able to answer. And Kalleh could have asked, "Are you suggesting that trainee nurses don't need patient contact?". That would have done the trick!

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
I like the idea of randomised controlled trials for nursing students. You could, for next years student nurse intake, teach half of them without contact with patients and then, throughout, say, the first five years of their careers monitor how many patients die while under their care compared to those taught with patient contact.

I have a difficult time believing that such a study could pass the ethics review.

You did realise that I wasn't entirely serious, right?

Yeah, those darned ethics committees. Just think of the studies we could perform without them! (Actually, the Nazis did think of them.)

quote:

And Kalleh could have asked, "Are you suggesting that trainee nurses don't need patient contact?". That would have done the trick!

Richard, I am serious. There are those (business people who are thinking they can make lots of money because of the nursing shortage) who think we can educate nurses online with simulation, but with no patient contact. Providing clinical experiences is relatively expensive because you need low faculty/student ratios. They'd most definitely answer "yes" to your question. Sadly, we had to spend a year collecting evidence and incorporating it into a position paper that says actual clinical experiences are supported by the research. Our time could have been much better spent doing something else. Surely expert opinion should have been sufficient for that kind of no-brainer question. The focus on "give me the evidence" can sometimes create a monster.

quote:

Richard, I am serious. There are those (business people who are thinking they can make lots of money because of the nursing shortage) who think we can educate nurses online with simulation, but with no patient contact.

Well, if they did answer "Yes", then you can ask a supplementary question about how they would gain certain kinds of experience where patient contact is essential. And if they can answer all those questions satisfactorily, then you need to examine the proposition itself.

Simulation can do many things - pilots use simulators all the time - but in the end have to fly real aircraft. It's a question of when it is appropriate to move from simulation to reality. I would think that, in the case of nurses, this would be at an earlier stage than in the case of pilots. After all, a pilot's relationship is with a machine and it's easy to get another machine to simulate that - it's not so easy to simulate a human being with a machine.

I agree with you. However, as I said above, we've had to answer the question, "Where's the evidence that student nurses need experience with actual patients?" As I said above, it was a waste of time that we had to put so many resources to work to answer that no-brainer question. But that's the problem when people think that everything must be "based on the evidence."

I'm with Kalleh on this one. Richard, your arguments are sensible and logical but fail to take into account that the mindset of people who can ask the question in the first place isn't sensible or logical.

If you can even ask "where is the evidence to show that student nurses need patient contact" then the only answers that you will understand are "here is the evidence..." or "there is no evidence..." and if the answer is the latter you will draw the conclusion that lack of evidence proves that there is no need.

Precisely, Bob. And during these times of nursing and faculty shortages, the business types see this as a huge opportunity to develop online nursing programs with little or no clinical experiences (which are expensive to offer), citing the "where's the evidence?" line. One nursing program in the U.S., in fact, doesn't offer any clinical experiences at all, and those students only receive online didactic education. Not all states allow those graduates to practice (Illinois doesn't), but some do.

quote:

One nursing program in the U.S., in fact, doesn't offer any clinical experiences at all, and those students only receive online didactic education.

I suspect evidence will then soon be available as to the effectiveness - or otherwise - of this approach. Patient records are obviously kept and thus recovery and survival rates can be assessed. Whereas a sub-standard achievement in an establishment that allows "online-trained" nurses to practise doesn't prove without doubt that online training is the cause, it does suggest that it might be a contributory factor and that further investigation would be appropriate.