Harry Potter meets Cornelius Van Til

The following blog is taken from James White’s web site. I didn’t use all his examples because that would make for a lengthy blog. If you want to read it in its entirety, you can go here and here.

------------------------
This weekend, the publishing phenomenon that is Harry Potter reaches its conclusion with the official release of the final book in the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Outside of the millions of people, young and old, who have invested money and hours of online time to these books, there are those, especially within the Christian community who will certainly not be sad to see Harry's story come to an end. Regardless of which category you fall into, these books have become a part of our popular culture, and as Christians who are in the world (though not of the world), like Paul in Athens, we should be willing to take that which is a part of our culture and use it for apologetic ends (see Paul's example in Acts 17:23).
Over the next week or so, you, or your child, might find yourself in (or close to) conversations around the book series and the events of the final installment. I thought it would be both timely and useful (and, let's face it, fun!) to present a way in which the Christian--regardless of whether he or she has actually read the books--might use such conversations as a means of bearing witness to Christ. If you understand the presuppositional approach to apologetics, you will already be familiar with the method I am proposing to use. If not, may this serve as an introduction to the method, and for further study I recommend you spend $4 on the mp3s of the Greg Bahnsen-Gordon Stein debate on the existence of God from Covenant Media Foundation. :-) In these blogs, I will be presenting passages from the first six Harry Potter books and demonstrating how it depends on a Christian worldview; in other words, Harry Potter could not have been written without assuming Christian presuppositions.

I am not claiming that these books are Christian, or even Christian allegory, or even that J. K. Rowling is herself a Christian (from interviews I have seen and read, she appears to be a typical nominal theist with a stereotypical suspicion of "organized religion"). But these books do make a number of assumptions about the way the world works, and about ethics and morality, that are inconsistent with anything but a Christian theistic, or Biblical, worldview. In other words, for her stories to "work," she cannot draw from the fallen humanistic worldview that gave us evolution (or neo-Darwinian macro evolutionary theory), Hitler, Stalin, and the moral decadence that is rampant in much of Europe (and sadly in the US too)--i.e., the natural worldview of fallen mankind. Rather, she has to borrow from the Christian worldview concepts that are foreign to the natural worldview for her story to have any kind of moral foundation.

Two Worldviews
The Scriptures often speak of the distinction between "the spirit" and "the flesh," or the way we used to think, and the way we think now we are in Christ, redeemed and reborn by the Spirit of God (Ephesians 2:1-7, for example). Biblically speaking, there is no middle, or neutral ground. You either see the world with fleshly eyes, only accepting what you can see, smell, touch, taste, and hear, or you see the world through the eyes of faith, as Scripture presents the world, allowing for the supernatural. Beyond this, though, the Christian also sees men as creations of a holy God that have fallen into sin, and as a result sin reigns in the hearts of men. Within this worldview, concepts of moral standards, good and evil, redemption, and so forth make sense, because the Christian believes there is a God who can set the standards, and also understands the condition of man to be one of always failing to meet those standards. The humanistic worldview, the worldview of "the flesh," however, can not explain moral absolutes, because the humanist does not have an ultimate arbitrator between right and wrong, good and bad. For the humanist, therefore, these things are "conventions": each society determines its own rules and standards of behavior.
The problems the humanist worldview encounters as a result of this perspective can, I think, be exemplified through the following samplings from the Harry Potter series. Given my appreciation for original languages, all quotations from the Harry Potter books will be from the British editions. :-)

Example One: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
Hagrid the half-giant explains to Harry how his parents died:

"... See, there was this wizard who went... bad. As bad as you could go. Worse. Worse than worse... Anyway, this--this wizard, about twenty years ago now, started lookin' fer followers. Got 'em too... Terrible things happened. He was takin' over. 'Course some stood up to him--an' he killed 'em. Horribly... All anyone knows is, he turned up in the village where you was all living, on Hallowe'en ten years ago. You was just a year old. He came ter yer house an'--an'... You Know Who killed 'em. An' then... he tried to kill you, too... Never wondered how you got that mark on yer forehead? That was no ordinary cut. That's what yeh get when a powerful, evil curse touches yeh..." (p. 45)

Let us look at the underlying worldview assumptions in this quotation. First, for a wizard to go "bad," one must have a moral standard with which to compare this wizard's behavior. Further, for Hagrid to be able to describe this wizard as "bad" and expect Harry to understand him, this standard must be universal. If we bear in mind that, in the context of the story, Harry has been living in England, and Hagrid has come to him from the "Wizarding World," the idea that each society creates its own moral standards goes out the window. On what basis could Hagrid assume that Harry's worldview would agree with his assessment of murder as "terrible," and the attempt on Harry's life as something that resulted in an "evil curse"? Of course, it is critical to the plot that Hagrid doesn't have to explain his worldview to Harry, or convince him that murder is not a good thing. But which of the two worldviews allows for these presuppostitions?

Example Two: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Toward the end of the book, Professor Dumbledore gives some background information on the evil Lord Voldemort:

"Very few people know that Lord Voldemort was once called Tom Riddle. I taught him myself, fifty years ago, at Hogwarts. He disappeared after leaving the school... travelled far and wide... sank so deeply into the Dark Arts, consorted with the very worst of our kind, underwent so many dangerous, magical transformations, that when he resurfaced as Lord Voldemort, he was barely recognisable. Hardly anyone connected Lord Voldemort with the clever, handsome boy who was once Head Boy here." (p. 242)

This Tom Riddle, consorted with the "worst" of wizards in his pursuit of the "Dark Arts." It may seem redundant to observe that this is said with a negative overtone, i.e., that this was not a good thing to do. However, if we are to examine the worldview underlying this thought, we must ask why this would not be a good thing to do. Is it simply because such activity altered him from being "clever" and "handsome" to something other than these things? Or is it because of the moral destruction that occurred as a result of his activities? From a literary point of view, the transformation Tom Riddle underwent could be seen as an external manifestation of his gradual internal corruption, but this only goes to underscore the point: why is this a bad thing? What made the people Riddle consorted with "the worst"? If it was their behavior, then who is Dumbledore to judge their behavior? What standard is he applying? Is this merely a convention? And surely a wizard as powerful as Tom Riddle would see himself above such standards, and so by what superior standard would Dumbledore assess his condition?

Example 4: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
This excerpt is from the second task of the Triwizard Tournament where the competitors must rescue someone close to them from the bottom of the lake:

There were rocks littering the lake bottom. He dived and snatched up a particularly jagged one, and returned to the statue. He began to hack at the ropes binding Ron, and after several minutes' hard work, they broke apart. Ron floated, unconscious, a few inches above the lake bottom, drifting a little in the ebb of the water. Harry looked around. There was no sign of any of the other champions. What were they playing at? Why didn't they hurry up? He turned back to Hermione, raised the jagged rock and began to hack at her bindings too-- At once, several pairs of strong grey hands seized him. Half-a-dozen mermen were pulling him away from Hermione, shaking their green-haired heads and laughing. "You take your own hostage," one of them said to him. "Leave the others..." "No way!" said Harry furiously--but only two large bubbles came out. "Your task is to retrieve your own friend... leave the others..." "She's my friend, too!" Harry yelled, gesturing towards Hermione, an enormous silver bubble emerging soundlessly from his lips. "And I don't want them to die, either!" (pp. 433-434)

In the story, the Triwizard Tournament is a big event, where three wizarding schools each put forward a champion to compete on behalf of the school. Victory would not only give prestige and honor to the champion, but also to the school. In this excerpt, Harry, one of two champions representing Hogwarts (read the book or see the movie if you need further explanation), is ahead of the others until he gets to where not only his friends, but the loved ones of his competitors are tied to a statue. Harry manages to free the captive he was supposed to "save," but he finds himself unable to leave the others there, especially since it appears the other champions are not coming. In an act of apparent heroism that jeopardizes his lead in this event, Harry tries to release the other captives. As it turns out, all but one of the other champions arrive to claim their friends, and Harry ends up not only rescuing Ron, but also the sister of the champion that did not arrive, for which he paid the price of losing the event. He is vindicated, however, when the judges decide to award him extra points for "moral fiber."
By now, I hope you can see for yourself the underlying assumption: love and compassion for others takes precidence over "survival of the fittest." This collides with the naturalistic worldview on two fronts: first, evolutionists tell us that mankind has reached its position in the world through a process of development that demanded that the stronger of the species overcome the weaker. If Harry's philanthropic impulse had dominated, according to evolutionists, we would have died out long ago, since it is this very impulse that drives people to care for and nurture the weak, not step on them for the cause of progress. Which worldview supports Harry's thinking here? Do you find love and compassion for the weak in Darwin or the Bible? Remember, neo-Darwinian macro evolutionary theory can only thrive in a worldview that does not make right-and-wrong judgments about human behavior. This is where Harry's compassion collides again with the naturalistic worldview: Harry was outraged that the mermen would have forced him to leave the others to, seemingly, die. Surely for Harry to win the contest, that would have been an acceptable loss. If not, why not? Which worldview best accounts for Harry's reaction?

Example 5: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Harry returns to the Griffindor common room (for those who don't know, Griffindor is the school "house" to which Harry and his closest friends belong) after detention with Professor Umbridge, a particularly unpleasant teacher who has used a distinctly vicious form of punishment on Harry:

"Listen Hermione, I was just up in Umbridge's office and she touched my arm..." Hermione listened closely. When Harry had finished, she said slowly, "You're worried You-Know-Who's controlling her like he controlled Quirrell?" "Well," said Harry, dropping his voice, "it's a possibility, isn't it?" "I suppose so," said Hermione, though she sounded unconvinced... "But last year your scar hurt when nobody was touching you, and didn't Dumbledore say it had to do with what You-Know-Who was feeling at the time? I mean, maybe this hasn't got anything to do with Umbridge at all, maybe it's just coincidence it happened while you were with her?" "She's evil," said Harry flatly. "Twisted." "She's horrible, yes, but... Harry, I think you ought to tell Dumbledore your scar hurt." (pp. 249-250)

By now you probably don't need my commentary. Did you spot the phrase? "She's evil." What gives Harry the right to say that about Professor Umbridge? After all, according to her worldview, Harry had behaved in a manner worthy of punishment, and, according to her worldview, the punishment she inflicted on him fitted the crime. In Harry's eyes (and the eyes of the however-many-millions of people that have read the book and seen the movie) the punishment was cruel to the point of being more like torture--but isn't that just Harry's worldview? Umbridge's estimation of Harry is that he is evil, because he is trying to undermine her position and authority. If such a tension truly existed in the minds of the readers of these stories, would they have been as popular as they are? Indeed, Rowling depends upon the fact that you will regard Umbridge as "evil" to drive the plot of the story. If you were left thinking, "well, perhaps Harry's the evil one here," why would you bother continuing to read, especially when it is Harry that is vindicated at the end, not Umbridge?

Conclusion
Hopefully, this somewhat light-hearted study has helped you to appreciate the fact that the naturalistic worldview fails precisely because it cannot account for the intangible. We all make moral judgments--our judicial system depends upon them--but a naturalistic worldview cannot explain why any of these judgments should be considered objectively correct. When humanists propose that moral systems are merely social conventions, why do they then complain when a certain Muslim country executes people for adultery? Surely that country has a right to define its own morality, and if that morality has no concept of grace and mercy, then on what basis can they object? Indeed, their own worldview cannot account for grace and mercy, so why should they expect others to? The fact of the matter is that God has written His law in the very fabric of the universe, and into the hearts of all men. Theologians refer to this as God's Moral Law, and from the first murder in Genesis 4, to the command to gather manna on only six days of the week in Exodus 16 (note, both events prior to the giving of the Ten Commandments), God has held these standards up for all mankind to obey. Of course, man in his sinful state fails to obey them, and by that same standard their sin is revealed, and they stand condemned before the most holy God. It is only when this understanding of the universe is grasped and applied does anything really make sense. And, as I hope I have demonstrated, it is only within the framework of this understanding of the universe that popular fiction such as the Harry Potter series can have meaning and connect with people.
Of course, Harry Potter is not the only cultural phenomenon that depends upon the same Christian worldview. Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, and even the classic British sci-fi series Doctor Who all have to borrow from the Christian worldview for their moral compass. As we engage our culture on a day-to-day basis, we should be aware of this, and look for ways to challenge the people we interact with to examine their worldview consistently, and ask them if it truly explains the world as it is. In the previous blog, I recommended the Greg Bahnsen/Gordon Stein debate on the existence of God as a good practical example of this apologetic method. For further reading, I would also recommend Dr. Bahnsen's excellent book Always Ready, available from the Alpha and Omega Ministries bookstore.