"Hence, it isn't yet a theory."

Under one narrow definition you choose to interpret it.  Under the use I was giving it, it was a perfectly acceptable use.

When you are speaking of science, the term "theory" has the narrower definition.  You can't just call any conjecture a "theory".

"It is as fictional as the Narnia tales, and a lot more entertaining, as well."

Are you under the delusion that I think the series is non-fiction?

I think that you are laboring under a lot of delusions, and just one of them is that this series is worth all the fuss and bother that you are putting out.    You have no objection to children and adolescents reading the Narnia tales, which also is fiction with an attitude.  To me, this is just another set of books like CS Lewis's, and it was apparently partly inspired by the Lewis works, which are also about an alternate reality.  Indeed, you've done the same thing that Pullman and Lewis have done--gone and written a book of fiction to promote some of your religious ideas.  If you and Lewis can do it, what's wrong with atheists doing the same?

"but the books themselves don't really do much to undermine Christian beliefs or promote atheism."

On the intellectual side, I certainly agree.   Pullman seems to be utterly ignorant about what Christianity is all about and his atheism reflects that.  On the other hand, there are a lot of ignorant Christians out there, too.  Any reasonably well informed Christian will see through the Pullman series and just about any atheistic argument out there.  My ultimate contention is that we need more reasonably well informed Christians.

I don't think that Pullman is any more ignorant of Christianity than others.  It is not unusual for people with strongly held beliefs to attribute ignorance to those who disagree with them.  After all, if I really and truly understood the Bible as you do, I would be a Christian, wouldn't I, sntjohnny?    You see yourself as the very model of a reasonably well-informed Christian, so what you really mean here is that there should be more Christians who accept your take on Christian doctrine.  Until they do, what should they do?  Avoid reading Pullman's books?  Not likely.

None of that would change the fact that it is appropriate, especially for Christian parents, to note that a series contains evangelism for atheism and the author specifically hopes to undermine the CHristian faith.  Whether or not they choose to read them after that is a different story.

If the child is even halfway normal, such a book would immediately top the list of must-reads.  If you really want a kid to avoid a book, give it to him as a gift and insist that he read it.  Trust me, sntjohnny.  When your kids get a little older, give them the God Delusion and insist that they read it.   

"Indeed, you can't be an atheist if you buy the book's premise that God exists, albeit not the kind of God that Christians worship."

Uh, no, not the kind of God at all.  You certainly can be an atheist and buy the book's premise that 'God' exists because Pullman's God is a physical entity.  You're right, that's not the Christian conception.

Exactly.  The book is not trying to depict the Christian concept of God.  It is saying that that concept could be based on a misperception of the real God.

I think you're playing hard to get.  If I was advocating to have the Pullman series boycotted, or worse, to have him arrested, thrown in jail, and banned, than your statement would be justified.  But I am not advocating that so you're really just being silly.  I am perfectly in my rights to have the concerns that I have and if I see an atheistic author trying to pry into the minds of young people under the guise of story it isn't that I hold him in contempt it is simply something that I can justifiably point out.

I never said what you were advocating, and you have yet to explain that fully.  So what if the book doesn't send your message of what Christianity stands for?  It isn't trying to do that.  I don't get upset by all the books with religious themes that contradict my beliefs.  I think that people need to be exposed to lots of contradictory beliefs.  That's how they learn to think critically.  Christians are always trying to "pry into the minds of young people", and atheists have strongly objected to that.  So I am not going to be sympathetic to the message that some atheist writes adolescent literature that you object to on religious grounds.

You didn't answer my question.  If HDM does not specifically advocate for atheism and undermining of the Christian faith, in your view what would a series look like that did?

I honestly don't think that Pullman's series is that overtly pro-atheist, and I don't think that kids will take it any more seriously than they take books like the Narnia series.  Look at the popular genre of "rapture" books out there.  I consider the idea of the "rapture" to be utter rubbish, but I'm certainly not going to complain that it's out there for young minds to be exposed to.

I do get your point.  You are reacting to Pullman's books in the same way that a lot of atheists react to Lewis's.  It is a series of books that entices readers into adopting attitudes that promote a certain outlook on religion.  But, if I were really interested in promoting atheism, my first reading assignment would be the Bible itself.  That is where you find the most material to indict religious beliefs and religious attitudes.

Do you think it might... call to attention the many sins of the Church over the years?  ... challenge the notion that God is good?  attack the obedience of faith promoted within Christianity?

I cannot count the number of good SF books that do just that.  Pullman's little fantasy really gets lost in the noise, when you think of the amount of material that young minds are going to be exposed to.  I just don't see it as particularly important.  It is a popular series, but there is plenty of other literature around that does the same thing, and sometimes even more skillfully.  Pullman's sins are that he has been a good enough writer to attract a lot of people to his series.  Big deal.  Or, as you would put it, *shrug*.

These are all themes that pop up on this forum all the time and certainly show up in HDM.  For a series explicitly bent on promoting atheism, what would you think Pullman would need to add?

Personally, I would prefer a series that had less Harry Potter in it and more Isaac Asimov.

That depends on whether or not I've clarified where I am coming from.  If I have and I am within common usage you're just picking an unnecessary fight.  The multiverse is mainstream.  That's a fact.  Deal with it.

I see.  When you pick fights, they are necessary.  When I pick them, they're not.  Got it.    The "multiverse" is not a mainstream theory.  You deal with it.

"You see yourself as the very model of a reasonably well-informed Christian, so what you really mean here is that there should be more Christians who accept your take on Christian doctrine. "

I am a pretty good model, actually.  I meant to deal with this before.  You think that I am unique.  As I have pointed out many times before, the core of where I stand is shared by nearly 1.5 billion other Christians.  That is 1,500,000,000.  That's a big number, Cop.

And a highly questionable one.  I would say that the vast majority of Christians in the world do not share some of your most fundamental beliefs about their religion.  You ain't even a Catholic, which pulls down the largest voting bloc in christendom.  The Pope gets to vote all their proxies, and he endorses some 'bad theology' from your perspective. 

Slice away the Mormons and you are at 1,495,000,000.  Slice away clearly anti-creedal and I bet you drop it down at most 200,000,000.  So, you're just in error.

Yes, we're going to have to do some slicing, but I would probably seek to carve it a little differently from you.  When I got done, you'd be pretty lonely there.  I might leave you the Mormons, though.  They can tell you all about God's physical body. 

There is a reason why Lewis's 'Mere Christianity' is welcomed across so many denominations.  It is mere CHristianity which I promote and defend on this board.  I bet you can't even remember the last time I shared my perspective on worship styles or the sacraments, or a variety of other issues that Christians have been known to argue about.

I'm pretty sure that I lost consciousness rather quickly.  I just remember feeling faint and dizzy as the oxygen was sucked from my lungs.

Don't you worry about my kids.  My kids are going to be so informed they'll be showing you up at age 10. 

Oh, I'm not worried about your kids.  You're too smart of a Dad to raise dumb kids.  I'm more worried about you when they reach that certain age of rebellion.  That's when you'll have to answer for your sins, not when you meet Jesus.  They spend the pre-teen years collecting and evaluating your concerns so as to know which targets will produce the highest casualty counts.  Religion is rather high on your list of concerns.

Exactly.  Hence my point that many Christians are unaware of that and that many Christian kids haven't even yet learned what the real Christian perspective is.

And probably never will.  How many of the 1.5 billion have?  Again, so what?  That book isn't going to prevent them from being exposed to your ideas.

Out of curiosity, apart from this thread, have you any idea about my views on this matter?

Do you take me to be anti-Harry Potter, for example?

Actually, I see you as a little more sophisticated than most Christian conservatives that I happen to run into.  You, at least, have a good sense of humor.  I really tend to avoid reading about Harry Potter.  I find the movies boring, and I couldn't even stay awake through the second one.  I tried seeing it twice (out of my sense of loyalty to Satan) before I gave up.  I can't recall ever clicking on a thread with "Harry Potter" in the title.

"I don't get upset by all the books with religious themes that contradict my beliefs."

Who is upset?  lol

Your laugh there was a little too loud and high-pitched.

"I honestly don't think that Pullman's series is that overtly pro-atheist, and I don't think that kids will take it any more seriously than they take books like the Narnia series."

You're not answering the question.  You've made it clear that you don't think it is overtly pro-atheist.  What would an overtly pro-atheistic fantasy novel look like and how is HDM different?

I don't think that the atheism is as much in one's face as it is in non-fictional works like The God Delusion and God is not Great.  Pullman was more concerned with spinning a good yarn than bludgeoning the reader with religious messages.  The atheism theme is really more of a subtext, and I think that many readers will come away without the feeling that their religious convictions have been seriously challenged.

"Personally, I would prefer a series that had less Harry Potter in it and more Isaac Asimov."

Prefer in what way?  As a promotion of atheism?  Or just subjective pleasure?  I'm dying to know what an overtly pro-atheism anti-Christian book would look like if HDM isn't it.

Look, Pullman said that a Vicar had read his book and found it "morally pure".  That is, the basic behavior and attitudes of the protagonists were those of good Christians.  The fact that the book had non-Christian pretensions about the nature of reality simply wasn't that big a deal to the vicar.  It's not something to get all concerned about.

Of who else's accord would I be making the statement?  Free will is compatible with determinism.  We can choose to do whatever we want, but we can't choose to want whatever we want.

You mean middle knowledge? I've read about it in William Lane Craig's The Only Wise God based off the theory put forth by Luis Molina in the 16th century. That God not only knows what is, but He knows what would be if. This would seem to throw a wrench in the idea of alternate realitys as it would mean God would be able to determine what would happen in every possible reality before he created it, then proceeded to choose this reality we live in because it was the best one.

Not knowing the math, we cannot judge how apt the metaphors are that physicists use to describe the math.  I don't think that sntjohnny has the slightest idea what he is speculating about.

True, but my question is that if it crosses over the philosophical side of the fence, shouldn't it be able to stand up to the scrutiny on that side? Thus one need not advanced mathematical knowledge to varify or disprove it. Or is that somehow unreasonable?

You see, it's been my observation that schools and universitys try to teach math, science, and philosophy as seperating subjects, but in practice people blur the lines between them all the time. We have science crossing philosophical grounds all the time, and math and philosophy have to be in place before science can even begin to function. So I simply wonder why one needs to argue on the subjects own grounds (it's homefield advantage if you will) if what it is doing is dictating in another category. It's true that there is a lot of "in fighting" amoung each subject, but I see no reason why philosophy has to be thrown out as a standard of measurement when it's the philosophical implications that are at issue.

You mean middle knowledge? I've read about it in William Lane Craig's The Only Wise God based off the theory put forth by Luis Molina in the 16th century. That God not only knows what is, but He knows what would be if. This would seem to throw a wrench in the idea of alternate realitys as it would mean God would be able to determine what would happen in every possible reality before he created it, then proceeded to choose this reality we live in because it was the best one.

Oy, you make me so happy I don't have to try to rationalize the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent being.  No, I meant that I consider myself a compatibilist on the free will issue.

]Not knowing the math, we cannot judge how apt the metaphors are that physicists use to describe the math.  I don't think that sntjohnny has the slightest idea what he is speculating about.

True, but my question is that if it crosses over the philosophical side of the fence, shouldn't it be able to stand up to the scrutiny on that side? Thus one need not advanced mathematical knowledge to varify or disprove it. Or is that somehow unreasonable?

I think that one should be cautious in relying too heavily on the metaphorical descriptions of physicists to draw a lot of philosophical conclusions about the nature of reality.  When the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics came into vogue, Einstein and others characterized it as "good science, bad philosophy".  Einstein's thought experiment on how to disprove quantum indeterminacy didn't work out, but there are still plenty of people with conflicting ideas on how to come to grips with it.  The mulitple-world hypothesis is just one of those ideas.  It's chief advantage is that it restores determinacy to quantum events, but that doesn't mean that it's right. 

You see, it's been my observation that schools and universitys try to teach math, science, and philosophy as seperating subjects, but in practice people blur the lines between them all the time. We have science crossing philosophical grounds all the time, and math and philosophy have to be in place before science can even begin to function. So I simply wonder why one needs to argue on the subjects own grounds (it's homefield advantage if you will) if what it is doing is dictating in another category. It's true that there is a lot of "in fighting" amoung each subject, but I see no reason why philosophy has to be thrown out as a standard of measurement when it's the philosophical implications that are at issue.

I do think that it is easy to jump to facile conclusions about subjects that one has little or no expertise in.  Experts are people who understand the limits of their understanding about a particular field of study.  Laymen tend to be blissfully ignorant of the real issues.

"For example, the

"That news article really got to you, didn't it? "

lol, its not like it 'gets' to me.  It's evidence that you're wrong!

Haven't we always differed over the significance of textual evidence?    

...You keep asserting that there is no agenda behind the book but there you have the man actually laying it out.  This is about you conforming to reality, Cop.    What does the man have to say? Not, "I'm looking to undermine Christianity" but straight out "I'm promoting atheism" ?  Would you even accept that?  "Oh, no, he doesn't really mean that.  He's just trying to spin out a good yarn!"

You've missed the subtlety of my argument once again.    I have been claiming that the impact of the books and the movie on people's beliefs will be negligible.  Pullman himself has an anti-religious agenda, but I think that he is really using that issue to pump up sales of the books and the movie.  What is happening here is akin to what happened with the Harry Potter series and the Da Vinci Code.  Religious opposition is free advertising and free hype.  Pullman was probably ecstatic with the Catholic League's recent advance condemnation of the movie.  You couldn't ask for more than a stampede of panicked parents clamoring for their kids to be protected from dangerous sacrilegious ideas.  That will pack the theater with adolescents--the real target audience--but not young children.  Only the most daring will go to see it--which is to say just about every kid on the block who can sneak around parental roadblocks.  Anyone who doesn't go will be a wimp. Far from having a hidden agenda, Pullman has done everything he could to trumpet his agenda.


Pullman has already said that he sold the rights with no strings attached.  That is, he didn't care if they turned Iorek Byrnison into a giraffe.  I have not been disclaiming Pullman's anti-religious agenda, only that this theme leaps out at you in the book.  It does not.  In fact, if you read the book carefully, you'll find that there is very little science or naturalism in it.  Miracles happen all over the place, but there is supposed to be some naturalistic explanation for them by the time you get to the end of the series.  The physics is nothing more than warmed-over supernaturalism.  The first book, which the movie is based on, hardly scratches the surface of the anti-religious theme, which takes forever to come out.  In the end, it is just another swipe at organized religion.  If the third movie is ever made, they may tone down the antireligious sentiment, whether Pullman likes it or not.  It isn't really a necessary ingredient to the plot.

As for having a problem with it... I don't have a 'problem' with it.  It is like any other 'argument.'  His series is meant to undermine Christianity.  He says so himself.  It is perfectly reasonable to note that as a Christian apologist and to respond to the arguments it contains.  Just because those arguments are delivered via narrative doesn't mean they aren't arguments.

That's a secondary debate.  Young people are now questioning religion in greater numbers than ever before, but there is much more serious material out there to stimulate discussion.  The Golden Compass is not going to make much difference to people in what they really believe.  In fact, my other thread explains what I consider the more important driver in Christian evangelism--the need to feel empowered by religion.  The Golden Compass does not address that aspect of the debate at all.

It may be a little tricky sometimes to winnow out what is an argument and what might just be construct.  Fortunately, I have my years of debating you as practice in doing just that. 

It never fails to surprise me how often you miss the mark, even after all that practice. 

""What about Forrest Carter

"In fact, if you read the book carefully, you'll find that there is very little science or naturalism in it.  Miracles happen all over the place, but there is supposed to be some naturalistic explanation for them by the time you get to the end of the series."

That you think that miracles happen all over the place goes to show your failure, after all these years of discussion between you and me, and you and countless others, to understand exactly what the Christian description of God is.

If all, or even most, Christians agreed with your descriptions of God, that would make sense.  Where you do seem to agree with other Christians is that your version is, or ought to be, the one that everyone else supports, even if they don't know it. 

"The physics is nothing more than warmed-over supernaturalism."

By definition, this statement cannot be true.  By definition...

Nonsense.  We pretty much know that dark matter and dark energy exist in the universe.  The properties that Pullman attributes to it are pure fantasy.  Come on.  Witches riding on broomsticks?  That's not exactly "hard" SF.

...This will sound harsher than I intend it, but I think I would like to make the strong suggestion that you put yourself on sabbatical and take a moratorium on posting on these issues.  Put yourself through a 6-12 month crash course on Christian theology written by Christians.  Clearly, you don't respect my correctives.  You think I am giving you a Sntjohnny-Version of God.  After you've read the same concepts described by a couple of dozen Christian theologians you will see otherwise.

You're sending me off to Christian boot camp? You are right.  That does sound harsh. 

According to the Christian view, God is noncontingent, simultaneously transcendental and immanent.  Omnipotence and omniscience follows from those three assertions...

Why is it that you persist in claiming that I don't understand your concept of God?  We've discussed all of this before, and 24 droning theologians aren't going to make it sound any more coherent than you have.  I should send you off to atheist boot camp, where the professorial philosopher-authors from The Impossibility of God will explain all of the contradictions inherent in your theology.  Unlike Christian boot camp, atheist boot camp provides high speed internet connections and mocha lattes.  Unfortunately, you'll have to pass a quiz to prove that you've actually read The God Delusion before they let you go home. 

...From a Christian POV, there is not a single miracle in HDM.  An educated Christian in Lyra's world would not have perceived any of the things that happened as described in HDM as a 'miracle' to be explained as naturalistic in the first place.  How interesting that an atheist would...

It was a FANTASY world!  The Christians in Lyra's world were not Christians in the real world.  Their reality gave them different experiences.  You really don't get it, do you?

That begins to get to the core of why I believe HDM is a 'threat.'  It promotes ignorance of the Christian world view and, while certainly promoting the primacy of matter- materialism- its atheism is not and cannot be, by definition, a rejection of God.  But he thinks so.   You think there are supernatural elements in the physics of the book.  Dawkins thinks God is like Zeus.

Oops!  You just flunked the Dawkins quiz.  Two more weeks in boot camp.  Bring the droning atheist philosophers in, and take away his internet privileges! 

It may have escaped your attention, but Pullman is not trying to refute your theological cavils and quibbles about God's nature.  It is not a philosophical treatise in support of atheism.  He does the same thing that CS Lewis, you, and other Christian authors have done in presenting a point of view about religion in a fictional wrapper.  Your harps and cavils will do nothing but sell more of his books and movie tickets.

How is such ignorance being cultivated in the atheistic community?  I don't doubt that it has much to do with the stubbornness of atheists in many respects but I think too that it has a lot to do with the Christian church failing to adequately explain itself.  To outsiders and insiders.  Thus, I have been maintaining in public statements that HDM is an opportunity to do just that.

I'm glad that you see Pullman as providing you with a big opportunity here.  You must be as grateful to him as he is to you, although his gratitude won't make you rich as yours will him. 

The HDM series merely reflects in narrative the same categorical errors in the more 'serious material' of Dawkins.   Dawkins possesses the same thoughts about what the Christian God is like, describing God in very derogatory terms, and Dawkins also catalogs the sins of the Church.  One puts the concept in narrative, another in non-fiction.

That's a distortion of what Dawkins does, and you know it.  You spread such distortions about the book, because you are trying to build up contempt for him with other Christians.  Dawkins criticizes some very common perceptions of God among Christians, even if you yourself don't agree with those perceptions.  Dawkins is fully aware of the diversity of opinions about the nature of God and gods, and he is more careful than you to hedge his statements.  Unfortunately, it is very easy to snip his words out of context and make his qualified statements sound unqualified and unfair.

We need more moderately educated Christians, and it is my contention that we can use HDM to create them.  We may even help an atheist along the way. 

You ought to reread what Dawkins had to say about the nature of delusion.   

It was written by a racist.  Oprah didn't pull it because the story didn't move her.  SHe admits it did...

OK, you see some relevance and parallelism between the Oprah incident and Pullman's books.  I think that it is too much of a stretch to pursue.

"You're sending me off to Christian boot camp? You are right.  That does sound harsh."

It doesn't have to be boot camp.  It is too bad Dorothy Sayer's "The Whimsical Christian" is not in the public domain.  You'd do well to listen to her opine on the matter.  The whole collection is good but a good 3 of them would serve as some healthy medicine for you.  You don't know what you don't know.

"Why is it that you persist in claiming that I don't understand your concept of God?"

Because you don't and you think you do.  It is precisely on account of my apparent failure to explain it to you that I am suggesting that you do some serious study.   If you're going to remain an atheist in regards to xtianity you should at least reject the real thing and not a caricature.

"It was a FANTASY world!  The Christians in Lyra's world were not Christians in the real world.  Their reality gave them different experiences.  You really don't get it, do you?"

Or you don't get it.  You're right that Lyra wasn't from our universe, but Mary Malone was.  In the third book when she is going off on how Christianity is just a convincing mistake, she is opining on a Christianity that pertains to our universe.

"He does the same thing that CS Lewis, you, and other Christian authors have done in presenting a point of view about religion in a fictional wrapper.  Your harps and cavils will do nothing but sell more of his books and movie tickets."

Consider that, Cop.  You acknowledge that Lewis, myself, and other Christian authors have done... presenting a point of view in a fictional wrapper.  Do you really think I would be ignorant of the mechanics of Pullman's approach?  Don't be silly.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't appeal to my experience as an author of fictional words and then reject my application of that experience.  It is precisely because I know about presenting points of view in fictional wrappers that I understand how it works.  I know the power and the limits of the medium in intimate detail.   You, however, are a muggle. 

"That's a distortion of what Dawkins does, and you know it."

It is not a distortion, it is the truth.  You don't like it, or don't see it, because Dawkins is your boy.

"You spread such distortions about the book, because you are trying to build up contempt for him with other Christians."

lol, right.  So sinister I am. 

I'd like to now deal with this:
""Dawkins thinks God is like Zeus.""
"Oops!  You just flunked the Dawkins quiz"

No, true.  I have documented that before but as we can all see just what respect you give to textual evidence obviously whether says so or not is irrelevant.  And you think God is like Zeus, too.  If I were to be more precise, I would say that Dawkins shouldn't care less what God is like and the fact that Christians have an entirely different view is not one that he thinks is important. 

"Dawkins criticizes some very common perceptions of God among Christians,"

But that is false.  But even if it is true, these are not the perceptions of those who know what they're talking about.  Criticizing the opposition's weakest arguments rather than its strongest does not redeem him in the slightest.  I haven't read a single Christian who thinks that Dawkins correctly characterized Christianity.

"OK, you see some relevance and parallelism between the Oprah incident and Pullman's books.  I think that it is too much of a stretch to pursue."

Once again we see your disdain for textual evidence at work.    I wonder at you, Cop.    I'm wondering if you think Oprah was right to pull the book.   Unlike Pullman who expressly said he wanted to undermine Christianity, as far as I know "Forrest Carter" made no such statements.  Unlike Pullman, which is rife with anti-christian commentary, there isn't any pro-segregation material in the book by "Carter."  Do you think Oprah over-reacted?  The book isn't going to lead the reader towards being a segregationist, right?  Or do you think Oprah, being a black woman, might have some justification for not wanting to promote the work of an author who stands against you- regardless of how effective it is presumed the work will be?

"Why is it that you persist in claiming that I don't understand your concept of God?"

Because you don't and you think you do.  It is precisely on account of my apparent failure to explain it to you that I am suggesting that you do some serious study.   If you're going to remain an atheist in regards to xtianity you should at least reject the real thing and not a caricature.

Sorry, sntjohnny, but this is all beside the point.  Pullman is presenting a fantasy in which the Christian god turns out to be something other than its worshippers imagine.  If he fails to express the precise nature of your imagined deity, the book still works on all the levels it is intended to work on.  As for myself, I see no reason to go rushing off on a literature search to try to make better sense of your claims.  You haven't said anything about your god that I haven't heard before.

"It was a FANTASY world!  The Christians in Lyra's world were not Christians in the real world.  Their reality gave them different experiences.  You really don't get it, do you?"

Or you don't get it.  You're right that Lyra wasn't from our universe, but Mary Malone was.  In the third book when she is going off on how Christianity is just a convincing mistake, she is opining on a Christianity that pertains to our universe.

No she is opining on the beliefs of Christians in our universe.  You are saying that her Christian beliefs--which are based on Pullman's own experience as a Christian--are mistaken.  But that is just you doing some of your own opining.

Consider that, Cop.  You acknowledge that Lewis, myself, and other Christian authors have done... presenting a point of view in a fictional wrapper.  Do you really think I would be ignorant of the mechanics of Pullman's approach?  Don't be silly.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't appeal to my experience as an author of fictional words and then reject my application of that experience.  It is precisely because I know about presenting points of view in fictional wrappers that I understand how it works.  I know the power and the limits of the medium in intimate detail.   You, however, are a muggle. 

I wasn't appealing to your experience as an author.  I was merely pointing out that Pullman did nothing different in writing a fictional work to express his ideas on religion.  And, despite your great experience as a seasoned author and literary critic, you seem to have missed the point by a mile. 

I'd like to now deal with this:
""Dawkins thinks God is like Zeus.""
"Oops!  You just flunked the Dawkins quiz"

No, true.  I have documented that before but as we can all see just what respect you give to textual evidence obviously whether says so or not is irrelevant.  And you think God is like Zeus, too.  If I were to be more precise, I would say that Dawkins shouldn't care less what God is like and the fact that Christians have an entirely different view is not one that he thinks is important.

I have refuted this before, but you seldom give up your strawman positions.  Here is an excerpt (p. 31) from The God Delusion:

I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus or Wotan.  Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly:  there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.

That definition is broad enough to capture the concept of God that most Christians believe in.  If you think that your version differs in a significant way, please tell us how.

"Dawkins criticizes some very common perceptions of God among Christians,"

But that is false.  But even if it is true, these are not the perceptions of those who know what they're talking about.  Criticizing the opposition's weakest arguments rather than its strongest does not redeem him in the slightest.  I haven't read a single Christian who thinks that Dawkins correctly characterized Christianity.

That doesn't surprise me, since it is a common ploy to ignore substantive argument by claiming that critics are deluded and misinformed.  This is one of your favorite ploys, and I think I've seen you use it on just about every atheist you argue with.  You think you can avoid addressing the issues by pretending that arguments don't apply to you.  We had a long exchange once on anthropomorphism where you simply refused to acknowledge the type of anthropomorphic traits I was talking about.  You also kept at this same ad nauseam mantra that I think of your god as being like Zeus--an old man in the sky.  Yet you still persist in attributing very human mental attributes to your god, ignoring the fact that that is also a kind of anthropomorphism.

Here is a bit of a quote from Pullman which makes it seem that he thinks God could definitionally be in a specific location within the universe... ie, a Zeus-like entity which with a powerful enough telescope and the right direction to point it we might glimpse God after all:

Can I elucidate my own position as far as atheism is concerned? I don