Who Wrote Harry Potter?

[SquareOne]

As part of my deconversion process, I have been meeting my (former) church pastor.

 

We have been talking about various issues.

 

I asked him, "Who wrote the New Testament?" and then to be more specific, I picked a book and said "Who wrote the Gospel according to Luke?"

 

He said, "It was written by Luke".

 

"How do you know that?" I asked.

 

"Because that is what has been commonly accepted by the church and theologians for most of the last two thousand years, and it is the name on the book." Said he.  

 

"But," said I,  "the gospel text does not say that it has been written by Luke.  It is anonymous."

 

"Why would the early church put the name of Luke on the book unless they knew that it was written by Luke?" asked he.

 

"Because they thought it was written by him," I said.  "That does not mean that it was written by him."

 

So he asked, "How do you know what J K Rowling wrote Harry Potter?"

 

"Because her name appears on the front of the book," I said.  "Because it was put there by the publisher.  Because she is alive, and she gets paid by her publisher.  Because you can talk to her or to witnesses who saw her turn in the manuscript.  Because she talks about the book and is invited to sign copies of the book."

 

"So for the same reason, that's how we know that Luke wrote the book."

 

"But there's nobody alive who saw the book being written, and no record of who put the name on the book, or why they did it."

 

"Did you see J K Rowling write Harry Potter?"

 

"No."

 

"So you don't know that she wrote it."

 

"I think it is most probable for the other reasons I gave."

 

"Oh, SquareOne," he said "You're just changing the rules now!"

 

 

 

...

 

 

Fuck me sideways.  This from an Oxford-educated Chruch of England vicar.

[florduh]

I've seen this tactic many times. The believer asserts that the only proof a non-believer will accept (when it comes to the Bible) is witnessing a thing in person. Of course, that is ridiculous. Slippery little fuckers, aren't they?

[Adrianime]

Hahaha, that is exactly like when OrdinaryClary tried to assert that I couldn't know China exists since I've never been there. 

[bornagainathiest]

Don't you guys 'get' it?

 

The only true reality is one created by and sustained by...

 

...an invisible, inaudible, intangible, undetectable, a-temporally eternal, non-spatial, omniscient, omnipresent spiritual agent...

 

...who relies upon copied and re-copied, two-thousand year old transcripts of eye-witness accounts by fallible observers as proof of it's love for us...

 

...and who will punish us for not loving it, by throwing us into it's specially-prepared, inescapable, fiery torture chamber for all eternity.

 

 

C'mon!   That's not so difficult to believe, is it?

 

 

BAA.

[SquareOne]

Boom!

 

Nice BAA.

[HymenaeusAlexander]

Hahaha, that is exactly like when OrdinaryClary tried to assert that I couldn't know China exists since I've never been there. 

 

That was my thought as well.

 

Epistemology, they're doing it wrong.

[SquareOne]

What I wish I had said at the time was this:

 

"Ultimately it doesn't matter who wrote Harry Potter.  It's just a story, and I get entertainment from it no matter who wrote it.  Some speculate that William Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him.  That doesn't matter.  I don't depend upon JK Rowling writing Harry Potter, and I don't depend on Shakespeare writing Macbeth.  However.  It does matter who wrote the Gospels, if they claim to have direct experience of God (Luke doesn't, by the way, because his book is supposed to be based on the testimony of others, but "John" does claim to have known Jesus), because we must be able to assess their character, to determine if they are truthful or not.  If we are going to base our lives on these books, we need to know who wrote them!  I don't need to know who wrote Harry Potter because I don't rely upon it to determine my view of reality."

 

I would go on.

 

"The classic argument raised by C S Lewis was that Jesus was either mad, a liar, or God; and that since he does not appear to be generally mad, or a liar, he must be telling the truth about his divinity.  Yet it is a fallacy to address the character of Jesus in this way.  What we must do is assess the character of "Matthew" "Mark" "Luke" and "John" - were they mad, or liars, or had they actually seen God?  As to that - we have no way of knowing!"

 

(Even that argument assumes that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were actually the authors, which they weren't!  So we're actually relying on the compilation skills of unknown authors, and the people who copied their works over the next two hundred years up until the first surviving copies.)

[DrNo]

Jesus H. Christ....I don't know how to handle the stupid...

[miekko]

There's a somewhat less obvious thing going on here. Saying that "it was written by Luke" does not tell us much! It's basically a semantically empty signifier!

 

Imagine this: you're an official of some function in a big town, and you get a letter signed by Matt with instructions from the city government. You don't know *who* this Matt is. The New Testament does not produce much as far as biography goes for this Luke, and so saying it was written by Luke is basically not significantly more informative than saying it was written by someone. 

 

Sure, this someone might've gone by the name Luke. It's unlikely this is the same Luke as the one mentioned in Acts - notice how Luke is supposed to be the author of Acts yet does not  and in Pauline letters, but who knows. 

 

A more meaningful question really would be "who is Luke supposed to have been, and why do you think the author of Luke was the person thus described"

[JoeCoastie]

Its like that Ken Ham guy who tells kids to ask their teachers, "Were you there to see evolution happen?"

 

This whole "were you there" thing is ridiculous  as we would not know anything if we didn't take basic assumptions or trust certain authorities.  Otherwise we may as well throw out most of history.  I'm more willing to trust the guys in lab coats than the guys in funny robes saying I must feel bad for being human. 

[mymistake]

As part of my deconversion process, I have been meeting my (former) church pastor.

 

We have been talking about various issues.

 

Well, there is the problem right there.  Talking to a pastor is a waste of time; that is unless you could use a good laugh.  It's best to just laugh at them.

[SquareOne]

 

Talking to a pastor is a waste of time

 

I suppose that would depend upon one's motivation.

 

I'm not seeking to persuade him of anything.  If I should lay seeds of thought in his mind that is only a bonus.

 

I am looking really to try and find if there is anything for myself I have missed about this Christian lark, and simultaneously to reinforce my belief that there really is nothing to it.

 

Also to try and let him understand that my deconversion is not just about "rejecting God" but about being genuinely unconvinved by the "evidence" of God.

 

I firmly believe - based on my own experience - that every intelligent Christian knows on some level that what they believe is crazy.  I think I did, or I would never have been driven to atheism.  My pastor himself has said he sometimes wonders if he's just crazy to believe what he believes.  So the doubt is there.

 

I also want to show that, I'm not just walking away from the Church without giving him every opportunity to persuade me otherwise, so he can't just say "he wouldn't listen".  If he sees me listen, at length, and then reject the message - at least he can't say I didn't listen.

 

I guess he could say that my ears were shut though.

 

I suppose he would have to concede that is part of God's divine plan though, which makes no sense whatsoever.  Hey - that gives me an idea for another scene.

[Adrianime]

On a side note.  According to the movie Jesus Camp, Harry Potter would be put to death because he is an enemy of god just like all warlocks!  So I'm pretty sure Harry Potter was written by either Satan, or by those who Satan has used to communicate His words.

[mymistake]

 

 

Talking to a pastor is a waste of time

 

I suppose that would depend upon one's motivation.

 

I'm not seeking to persuade him of anything.  If I should lay seeds of thought in his mind that is only a bonus.

 

I am looking really to try and find if there is anything for myself I have missed about this Christian lark, and simultaneously to reinforce my belief that there really is nothing to it.

 

Also to try and let him understand that my deconversion is not just about "rejecting God" but about being genuinely unconvinved by the "evidence" of God.

 

I firmly believe - based on my own experience - that every intelligent Christian knows on some level that what they believe is crazy.  I think I did, or I would never have been driven to atheism.  My pastor himself has said he sometimes wonders if he's just crazy to believe what he believes.  So the doubt is there.

 

I also want to show that, I'm not just walking away from the Church without giving him every opportunity to persuade me otherwise, so he can't just say "he wouldn't listen".  If he sees me listen, at length, and then reject the message - at least he can't say I didn't listen.

 

I guess he could say that my ears were shut though.

 

I suppose he would have to concede that is part of God's divine plan though, which makes no sense whatsoever.  Hey - that gives me an idea for another scene.

 

You can do it for your own reasons.  I certainly engage Christians in the Den.  So yeah, prove to yourself that you gave Christianity every chance of being right.  But when it comes to your pastor seeing it for what it is don't get your hopes up.  A few of them are honorable.  Most pastors would bad mouth you any chance they get.  You know the slurs as well as I do.

[mwc]

     Was Rowling writing a testimony when she wrote about Harry Potter?  Because that's supposedly what old "Luke" was up to or so I've been told.  So, even though I tend to think they're the same genre, I'm told they're not.  If J.K. Rowling told me that Harry Potter *was* a testimony, or biography, of Harry Potter, then she would have to have a lot more than a series of books to get me to buy in even if I actually could manage to walk up to her unlike "Luke."  She'd be making the same type of outrageous claim that takes a lot more for me, personally, to accept than "Yep, I saw it.  Here's my report.  I'm trustworthy for some reason.  God says so?  Let's go with that."  Sorry J.K. I'm not believing your wizard testimony at all but I accept your wizard fiction absolutely.

 

          mwc

[SquareOne]

mwc, you have made my day.

[Adrianime]

     Was Rowling writing a testimony when she wrote about Harry Potter?  Because that's supposedly what old "Luke" was up to or so I've been told.  So, even though I tend to think they're the same genre, I'm told they're not.  If J.K. Rowling told me that Harry Potter *was* a testimony, or biography, of Harry Potter, then she would have to have a lot more than a series of books to get me to buy in even if I actually could manage to walk up to her unlike "Luke."  She'd be making the same type of outrageous claim that takes a lot more for me, personally, to accept than "Yep, I saw it.  Here's my report.  I'm trustworthy for some reason.  God says so?  Let's go with that."  Sorry J.K. I'm not believing your wizard testimony at all but I accept your wizard fiction absolutely.

 

          mwc

 

I've tried to compare Harry Potter to the bible in a convo with a Christian before.  I believe they just ignored the whole subject.

[mwc]

 

I've tried to compare Harry Potter to the bible in a convo with a Christian before.  I believe they just ignored the whole subject.

     That's why I'm preaching to this choir.

 

          mwc

[3DollarBill]

Oh for fuck's sake, I get so mad when I read and hear arguments like this, especially from otherwise intelligent people.  I don't give a rat's ass who wrote Harry Potter because

a.)  I know I didn't write it...so I'm not getting any money from it, and

b.)  I liked the book.  I'm not basing any major life decisions or hanging my hope for an afterlife on it.  I'm certainly not attending a weekly Harry Potter Book Club whose dues are 10% of my salary.

 

Big, BIG difference.  

 

 

I firmly believe - based on my own experience - that every intelligent Christian knows on some level that what they believe is crazy.  I think I did, or I would never have been driven to atheism.  My pastor himself has said he sometimes wonders if he's just crazy to believe what he believes.  So the doubt is there.

 

Agreed 100%.  

[Vendredie]

The other fact of the matter is... even in this day and age, people can write a book and have whatever name they wish be printed on the cover.  Like J.K. Rowling herself.  Her real name is Joanne Murray.  She has no middle name.  Rowling is her birth name (though she was going by that name when she started the series).  Why would a Joanne Rowling (later Murray) choose to go by J.K. Rowling?  Because publishers thought that boys wouldn't read anything that was obviously written by a woman, and a name with initials in it would make her seem more masculine.  So she took on her grandmother's name, Kathleen, so she could go by J.K. Rowling... even after she married Mr. Murray and changed her name. The reason we know all of this is because it's been recorded, and Rowling herself has stated it, and a lot of people have fairly easy access to this information.

 

Imagine how easy that shit was back when the Bible was written.  Hell, the first five books are popularly thought to have all been written by Moses, even though that's clearly not true (most Bible scholars don't think so).  So anyone could have written anything under virtually any name back then, and if it was popular enough and circulated enough without the author being very well known, it's unsurprising that over time the work would be attributed to someone else.  There's no telling if any of this was recorded, and the information is very hard to access by the average person, so it's hard for *anyone* to prove.

 

So if reliable sources that don't cave in to "popular knowledge" say that the book of Luke wasn't written by Luke, then it wasn't fucking written by Luke. Seriously, what the fuck do they teach in seminaries?  I thought they were supposed to be the next step after college for aspiring preachers?

[SquareOne]

 

The other fact of the matter is... even in this day and age, people can write a book and have whatever name they wish be printed on the cover.  Like J.K. Rowling herself.  Her real name is Joanne Murray.  She has no middle name.  Rowling is her birth name (though she was going by that name when she started the series).  Why would a Joanne Rowling (later Murray) choose to go by J.K. Rowling?  Because publishers thought that boys wouldn't read anything that was obviously written by a woman, and a name with initials in it would make her seem more masculine.  So she took on her grandmother's name, Kathleen, so she could go by J.K. Rowling... even after she married Mr. Murray and changed her name. The reason we know all of this is because it's been recorded, and Rowling herself has stated it, and a lot of people have fairly easy access to this information.

 

Fuck that's such a clever point.  Wish I'd said that.

 

Next time.

[midniterider]

 

 

The other fact of the matter is... even in this day and age, people can write a book and have whatever name they wish be printed on the cover.  Like J.K. Rowling herself.  Her real name is Joanne Murray.  She has no middle name.  Rowling is her birth name (though she was going by that name when she started the series).  Why would a Joanne Rowling (later Murray) choose to go by J.K. Rowling?  Because publishers thought that boys wouldn't read anything that was obviously written by a woman, and a name with initials in it would make her seem more masculine.  So she took on her grandmother's name, Kathleen, so she could go by J.K. Rowling... even after she married Mr. Murray and changed her name. The reason we know all of this is because it's been recorded, and Rowling herself has stated it, and a lot of people have fairly easy access to this information.

 

Fuck that's such a clever point.  Wish I'd said that.

 

Next time.

 

J.K. Rowling...J.R.R.Tolkien....similar.

[SquareOne]

 

 

J.K. Rowling...J.R.R.Tolkien....similar.

 

 

 

George R.R. Martin

 

Shit.

[Tzarza]

Side Note:

When I was going through my deconversion process, my best friend was going through hers too (although by a different route). She was reading Jesus the Jew by Geza Vermes and trying to understand Jesus historically, from a Jewish perspective.

 

A point the book made, that she shared with me, was that during that time in history, it was acceptable to write stories as if they were true. Although Jesus didn't do all of the things listed in the NT, no one really cared about journalistic accuracy. The story was enough. If it made sense spiritually, then people would read and draw wisdom from it. You know the midrash; the Jewish text in which Rabbis write alternative perspectives, reasoning, and explanations of the Torah? Fan fiction was totally acceptable and even celebrated. 

 

However, just celebrating the story for the story's sake doesn't really translate to this day and age. Especially in our culture, where an accurate label (fiction/nonfiction) is crucial, writing something that isn't true as if it were true doesn't make sense. People get shamed and blackballed for mislabeling a fiction as a non-fiction, or even just stretching the truth. But back in the day, it wasn't such a big deal. It was just story telling. So when we take a story 2000 years out of its own culture and expect the authors to have been journalists, we make a huge error. 

 

That's part of how I believe the Gospels were written. I really need to read that book for myself though, and quite a few others for a more holistic understanding. 

[Tzarza]

A crazy Bhuddist friend also makes the point that Buddha was said to have sprouted from his mother's side, with lotus' blossoming after every step he took. He says that no one takes that literally, and even if they do, it isn't important. What Buddha said was important, the story about his birth is just a good story. 

He doesn't seem to understand that Christians take EVERYTHING in the bible as truth. If it isn't factual, then it's metaphorical. There is no 'it's just a story' distinction. 

 

This is quite an anecdotal point, and I'm not sure that every Buddhist would agree, but I think the 'just a story' VS 'word of god' intent of stories is an important detail; one that got lost in translation and time.