Cultural Capital

Reflections on books and the arts from the New Statesman culture desk

Exclusive: Philip Pullman on what he owes to the Church of England

The author on atheism, Anglicanism and "transcendental" experiences.

By Staff blogger Published 09 June 2011 10:38

Philip Pullman, writing exclusively for the Archbishop of Canterbury in this week's guest-edited issue, explains why he describes himself as "a Church of England atheist".

Pullman writes that, although he does not believe in God, the Anglican tradition has shaped his view of the world. Some of his formative experiences came from reading the King James Bible and being taught the evening prayer by his grandfather:

He was a clergyman and it's his voice I hear when I remember the beautiful prayers from matins or evensong or the Communion service. We can't abandon these early memories, by which I mean both that it's impossible and that it would be wrong. It is those that have made us and not we ourselves. Even if I became a Buddhist, I couldn't help but be a Church of England Buddhist.

Pullman goes on to reveal his frustration at the recent controversies over homosexuality and women clergy that have convulsed the global Anglican communion:

When I survey the wondrous mess that the sexophobic zealots in the Anglican Church have tried to bring about in recent years, I feel both distress and anger. None of my business in a way, because I'm not a believer, but at the same time it is my business: because of those memories of mine and because the Church of England is the established church of this nation. It belongs to all of us. We're all entitled to hold opinions about it.

And these demented barbarians, driven by their single idea that God is as obsessed by sex as they are themselves, are doing their best to destroy what used to be one of the great characteristics of the Church of England, namely a sort of humane liberal tolerance, the quality embodied in the term "broad church".

Pullman also tells of his past "transcendental" experiences:

Religion is something that human beings do and human activity is fascinating. I have never had an experience that I could call religious, though I have known two or three short passages of intense, transcendental feeling - that is to say, experiences of about 15 to 20 minutes, during which my perception of things in the external world (one was a storm on a beach; another was a journey home on a winter evening on the Tube and bus from Charing Cross Road to Barnes) seemed to become enlarged and clarified to include many things, all of which I was able to see without losing sight of everything else.

These visions of the real world were laced through with patterns and connections and correspondences. They were accompanied by a feeling of intense, calm excitement. I felt that I was seeing the truth, that all things were like this and that the universe was alive and conscious and full of urgent purpose.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Staff blogger

32 comments

Thu, 2011-06-09 13:53 — Andrew (not verified)

I don't know what exactly about this wee manny it is that gets on my wick, but he does.

Maybe it's the implication that anyone who does not agree with him is a rogue or a fool; maybe it's the fact that his career as a kids author is based on hating CS Lewis and that he spends so much time vilifying the man, who has been dead over 50 years and who would have made short work of him in debate; maybe its the bleak "happy (?) ending" for his literary hero and heroine, or the dodgy under aged sex theme it involves, or maybe its just that he is a bumptious arrogant little t**t

Whatever.

I am not sure why anyone in the COE should take any notice of a self-proclaimed aetheist like Pullman. After all, he doesn't share any of their values or beliefs, so why shouldn't they just tell him to go ***** himself - in a caring Christian way, naturally.

Everything he says he presents as if a proven fact rather than his personal point of view.

Why does Oxbridge produce so many of thes smug self-righteous boors?

Thu, 2011-06-09 22:50 — Peter (not verified)

Andrew, I think "the implication that anyone who does not agree with him is a rogue or a fool" is in your head - Pullman doesn't say this, nor does he say that everything he says is a proven fact rather than his point of view. Again, you're projecting your own insecurities. Then falling back on the time-honoured refuge of someone who's lost an argument (with yourself, apparently) - name-calling.

Thu, 2011-06-09 23:24 — Robin (not verified)

I reckon during those "transcendental" experiences he had - one on a beach during a storm and the other on the tube - he prayed to god. As it scared the s*it out of him.

Sat, 2011-06-11 12:11 — Keir

'So Keir if you tell me that you are seeing a ghost,it is up to me to prove to you that there is NO ghost??'

Completely unreligious, down-to-earth people have claimed to have seen ghosts. But no, it would be up to me to prove to you that there is a ghost if I say, "I have seen a ghost, therefore hand over fifty quid." And of course you would sensibly see no reason to take such action until and unless you had the evidence.

If I say, "I have seen a ghost, therefore I will lend you fifty quid until payday," you might perhaps think that belief in ghosts was not such a bad thing.

'the worst cruelty, mayhem and slaughter'

Is this what goes on among your local Methodists? Or is it that what some describe as the worst cruelty, mayhem and slaughter is understood by others as just recompense for behaviour that Methodists will not stand for?

Sat, 2011-06-11 12:42 — Daniele1

Keir:
Your reply makes no sense whatsoever but never mind.
Brazenbantam:
Sooo... if God still loves me although I don't even believe he/she exists, does that mean I am not going to Hell?
Great news! It takes that worry off my mind.

Thu, 2011-06-09 14:38 — Keir

There are no atheists.

Sat, 2011-06-11 12:52 — Keir

'no sense whatsoever'

We'll keep the white flag flying here.

Fri, 2011-06-10 00:10 — Joan (not verified)

Peter,you said it all for me. This Leslie sadly represents the vast majority of uneducated,opinionated people who are quick to provide us with the 'benefit' of their opinions without having the knowledge to back them up. If he read any of Pullmans books he clearly did not understand them.

Fri, 2011-06-10 00:55 — Sarah Ditum (not verified)

Very eloquent, thoughtful comments. The designation "Church of England atheist" is important - similar to "secular Jew" in catching the sense of belonging without necessarily believing. I've enjoyed Pullman's previous dialogues with Williams enormously, and I'm delighted that they are collaborating again in the NS.

Fri, 2011-06-10 01:08 — Keir

'Secular Jew' is rational and acceptable- a Jew by race, but not by religion. 'Church of England atheist' looks like an incipient case of the difficulty that the gods send on those they hate.

Thu, 2011-06-09 15:49 — Leslie (not verified)

In reply to Keir - I just don't believe you

Thu, 2011-06-09 16:02 — Keir

If that isn't a joke, reference should be made to a) the objectively absurd arguments proposed for atheism; and b) the almost unfailing affinity of supposed atheists, when those arguments are exposed as sham, with the CoE, the KJV, and even the Vatican, agents all of dilution and corruption of divine revelation, as supposed. Sham followed by more sham. :)

Fri, 2011-06-10 01:54 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

What is the difference between knowing and believing?

If he says he doesn't believe there is a God does this mean that he knows that there isn't?

What is he basing his belief on if it isn't knowledge?

Fri, 2011-06-10 01:57 — Grim Reeperbahn (not verified)

Keir: What in God's name are you talking about?

Fri, 2011-06-10 18:07 — Michael (not verified)

"If that isn't a joke, reference should be made to a) the objectively absurd arguments proposed for atheism; and b) the almost unfailing affinity of supposed atheists, when those arguments are exposed as sham, with the CoE, the KJV, and even the Vatican, agents all of dilution and corruption of divine revelation, as supposed. Sham followed by more sham. :)"

"the objectively absurd arguments proposed for atheism" - no one has to argue for atheism; atheism is not a belief, merely a lack of belief. And the arguments against the existence of a deity - the omnipotence paradox, the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, the argument from parsimony, the idea of Russell's teapot, the problem of hell, etc. - are far from "objectively absurd". Meanwhile, the argument from design is rendered irrelevant by evolution by natural selection (ie the blind watchmaker)and Pascal's wager not only assumes that the god is a Christian one but also assumes that atheists can choose to believe despite the lack of evidence. Most other theistic arguments are pretty much useless, and many completely overlook the idea of conflicting religions.

"the almost unfailing affinity of supposed atheists, when those arguments are exposed as sham, with the CoE, the KJV, and even the Vatican" - seriously? As a Catholic-raised atheist, I have a certain liking for the Church of England since it is more sensible and less irrationally obsessed by all things sexual. It promotes a more tolerant world-view. I still however think that its theological teachings are silly. I detest the Bible, the foundation of centuries of war, hatred and intolerance, full of morally repulsive vitriol; and as for the Catholic Church - I can hardly think of a more twisted, hypocritical organisation. It is sexist and homophobic - openly so - and has spread hatred and intolerance for centuries. It indoctrinates children by threatening them with eternal punishment in hell for crimes committed within a finite existence on Earth, contradicting its teachings of forgiveness and repentance. It tells uneducated and devout Africans, who will accept its word - forgive the pun - as gospel truth, that condoms exacerbate the spread of AIDS, leading to ridiculous amounts of unprotected sex and, thus, more AIDS! And perhaps worst of all, in direct contradiction to the story of the widow's mite, it hoards billions and billions of pounds, as well as all its grand buildings across the world, while millions starve in third-world countries. I have more affinity for Hitler than for the Vatican.

Please don't presume to know what others believe; you're only embarrassing yourself.

Fri, 2011-06-10 19:49 — Keir

'atheism is not a belief, merely a lack of belief'

That includes agnosticism. The statement "There is no deity" is as impossible to prove by formal means as "There is a deity" is impossible to prove by formal means. The only 'proof' can be informal, i.e. experiential, and as experience of absence does not prove impossibility of experience, agnosticism is the limit in the non-theism direction. Theism is possible, based on experience, however.

'Russell's teapot'

Ah, yes. A British astronaut carelessly left a teapot in space while throwing out the leaves (and the Russians left several samovars). So therefore, using Bertie's non-absurd method, a deity must exist.

And so it goes on, in Atheist Land, where straw doll factories dot the landscape.

'I detest the Bible'

So a book that promotes honesty, not deceit, self-control, not violence, patience, not frustration, mercy, not hardness, justice, not corruption, concord, not confrontation, that says 'Do as you would be done by', is unwelcome? How is that?

Wed, 2011-06-22 14:55 — Harry (not verified)

"smug self-righteous bores" is a term I often see used against people who, far from legitimising use of aforementioned phrase, just tend to be educated and well-read. It's a quick horse to jump on when faced by genuine intellectual reason which contradicts whatever belief you may have, to dismiss it as somehow self gratifying, or pompous. Pullman has always been incredibly unpretentious and transparent in his musings, he's an intelligent fellow and his critique of CS Lewis has always seemed rational and respectful - your problem with it is that you seem to think that it's arrogant and iconoclastic and that somehow, being deceased renders you immune from criticism.

Fri, 2011-06-10 09:40 — Keir

'What in God's name are you talking about?'

Awfully well put. Why ask me? Why not ask those who think that a 'Church of England atheist' sounds like a rational being? Surely 'church atheist' is like 'chocolate teapot'. Maybe 'of England' makes all the difference! :)

Thu, 2011-06-09 18:27 — Seaman T

Being only one God and lots of us, each with a very different set of opinions, so foolish to think it was ever our job to understand the mind of the almighty, though it might be his job to understand all of us, and in so doing understand his own mind better. Good luck to him in that.

Wed, 2011-06-22 14:48 — Harry (not verified)

Keir, I loved your cherry picking of Michael's beautiful argument against you....ignoring the real killer points that you have no real defence of.

Wed, 2011-06-22 14:57 — Harry (not verified)

"Everything he says he presents as if a proven fact rather than his personal point of view" You should really read back your own post, appreciate your rank hypocrisy, then carry on with your day.

Fri, 2011-06-10 11:56 — BrazenBantam

A child who shouts 'I hate you' at parents cannot destroy their love for it. So must it be for one who asserts they are an atheist it seems to me.

Fri, 2011-06-10 12:26 — Keir

Despite everything, you make a very coherent and apposite point.

I've told you before, take more water with it.

Sat, 2011-06-11 02:12 — Daniele1

So Keir if you tell me that you are seeing a ghost,it is up to me to prove to you that there is NO ghost?? Why should it? You are declaring that something highly improbable is happening i.e. your eyes can see a ghost, but you maintain that the burden of proof is on the rest of us who can see nothing?
You, my friend is the one with the absurd arguments.
As to your reading of the Bible, you and I have not read the same book or you have just chosen to ignore the 80% of the book where the worst cruelty, mayhem and slaughter are being described and where God seems to act as a sick psychotic killer of men.The bits you like I suspect are the nice bits from the New Testament when Jesus appears on the scene and all becomes sweet and light.What do you make of the rest then?