Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle
In the HP books the individual magician/scientist is entirely capable to the task of conquering evil without the aid of any larger beneficent force in the universe guiding him along. This stance is essentially anti-religious.
|
I wouldn't say anti-religious (a word that might more appropriately be applied to Pullman's books) but
areligious.
I hate to keep labouring the point, but Rowling lives and works in a society that is (unlike the US) largely areligious, by which I mean that the majority of people do not have strong religious convictions. In the UK today, Islam probably has a stronger following than Christianity. But most people are quite happy getting on with their lives without feeling the need for any strong belief in some omniscient deity guiding them. I am assuming that Rowling, like me, is just such a person and so her work is bound to reflect her approach in this regard (in the sense of not feeling the
need to explain the existence of magic in her world by reference to such a deity).
Given that this is the case, why is it not possible for people who have strong religious convictions to (willingly) suspend their belief and accept a fictional fantasy world (which is what Harry Potter's world is, despite its apparent setting in modern day Britain) in which God does not take centre stage, just as I willingly suspend my belief when I read LotR and accept the existence of Eru in Middle-earth? Really, it is not going to bring the world crumbling down around them and turn all their children to Satan. Take it from me as someone who has led a largely areligious (although most certainly not amoral) life.
