The following is an interview with Hans Andrea of Harry Potter for Seekers.
“Summa Scientia Nihil Scire – The Summit of Knowledge is to Know Nothing.”
Hans: What motivated you to write your book, Jesus Potter Harry Christ?
Derek: My book falls into that space between religion and atheism (spirituality without organization?) which is tougher to find an audience for.
The book itself is the result of a 10-year project that started when I was studying theology on Malta. I think traditional accounts of Christian history are false and the true state of historical criticism is not well known to the public, which is personally vexing to me for some reason. The fact that an argument like mine (that Jesus was mostly, or totally literary) is automatically refuted, without considering the evidence, is frustrating – so I’ve been working on making a heavily supported, fully formed theory concerning the possibility of this claim. Although it may not be ‘true’ (as in possible to verify for certain) I think my book is solid enough that it can’t be easily discounted. At the same time, while I have Christian apologists in mind, the book is intended to catch the interest of the general public.
After getting my degree from Malta, I began reading Harry Potter when a set of the first three books was gifted to me: I became a fan. I think the stories are well-told and exciting. Only recently (finishing my MA in Taiwan) did I decide to link Jesus and Harry together as the basis for my ongoing research. I can be accused of using Harry Potter’s popularity to sell books – and this may be slightly true. As one of the reviewers said, “Linking this analysis to J. K. Rowling’s globally popular character further heightens its relevancy.”
However as you all are aware there is more to Harry than meets the eye. Not only is HP full of Gnostic and Alchemical symbolism, Harry’s final death and resurrection (along with many other uniquely specific features) brand him as a Christ-Figure; more so than any other literary figure.
Starting with the religious controversy and similarities between Jesus and Harry, the book begins from the question: Can Jesus be separated from Harry on the claim that Jesus’ story is historical, while Harry’s isn’t? About 400 pages later, I conclude that it can’t: the similarities linking them are literature in both cases.
Hans: That’s an intriguing statement, Derek! Would you please explain that more deeply? Isn’t atheism a simple yes/no situation rather than one side of a continuum, which you seem to imply? I think it would help this discussion very much if you could outline to us what you personally believe. For example when you say “spirituality without organisation”, what exactly do you mean by spirituality? Would you agree that you can’t write a book about that subject without your own personal beliefs or convictions being the foundation?
Derek: ‘The Summit of Knowledge is to Know Nothing.’ Is the belief in the benefits of having no beliefs still a belief? If it is, can’t we still say that it is ‘better’ or ‘best’? I’m aware that history is always to a point subjective and that my aim and focus will color the results, and also that my intentions or beliefs matter – so it’s a fair question. However I’ll first point out that I don’t believe in the postmodern relativity whereby every belief is equally subjective. It’s also true that a clear definition of terms is in order although I’m not sure mine will be very beneficial; I can tell you what atheism means to me and my own experience of it, but I doubt my definition is airtight.
In brief, the way I understand it, atheism is the negation of belief in God, or absence of the belief in God; at least it would seem to be. But actually it depends on the motivations. If someone is refusing belief in God simply because the evidence is not strong enough, strictly speaking they should be agnostic, which I feel is a stronger philosophical position. The choice to brand yourself atheist rather than agnostic implies more zeal – you are sure that God doesn’t exist. (Too me, being sure that something isn’t true goes beyond the available evidence and falls itself into a kind of belief). Atheism with a big ‘A’ on the other hand, is the modern social movement against Western religion, predominantly Christianity and Islam. This Atheism strays far from belief in God and focuses on the ills, evils and disadvantages of religion. The point is not whether God exists, but whether religion is beneficial.
So belief in God is not really the central issue, but whether religion has anything to offer. My position is somewhere in the middle, without being ‘on the fence’ or lacking conviction. I strongly feel that that being too passionate in any extreme is bound to lead to error or violence. I disagree with Atheism in that I don’t think religion is ultimately evil; I think there are some beneficial, meaningful and inspirational practices that should be continued – regardless if God is objectively true. Most Atheists will call this foolish, and deny any kind of transcendentalism, spirituality, metaphysics, etc.
Religion, on the other hand, generally establishes a code of conduct and ritual; a specific way to reach the divine, and it refuses salvation to those beyond its reach. For me, any divine plan of salvation that is not equally accessible is unjust, and can’t have come from a just God. So either A) God is unjust or B) religion is not from God. Either is possible, but I prefer to stick with B. ‘Spirituality’ means to me any attempt to seek higher meaning, wisdom, power or truth. It can be greatly aided by elements found in religion (prayer, meditation, singing, chanting, community, faith) but should not be confined to any one tradition, which are mostly cultural or racial rather than divine.
The right to freedom or belief and religious practice is a political liberty. There is a war of minds going on these days between religions like Christianity and Islam (who hope to convert the whole world, and are making progress) and Atheism, who would get rid of religion altogether. If either of them wins, we lose our freedom to practice our personal philosophy/spiritua lity. This is perhaps why I feel like I need to take a stand – religious tolerance is not enough; it will inevitably lead to the triumph of the most aggressive religious system, to the exclusion of all others.
Hans: I think this series of posts is going to turn more into a dialogue than an interview. I hope that’s OK with you, Derek.
Before pursuing your last answer I’d like to ask a more basic question about your book. I’ve been thinking a lot about how to explain my question.
I guess there are mainly three sorts of books: (1) to entertain (fiction), (2) to provide information (reference books) (3) to change people’s minds. I think your book fits into category 3. You’re standing on a soap-box, aren’t you Derek? You obviously disagree with some things in the world and you want to accomplish some sort of change in people’s thinking, perception, attitude, mentality, etc - some or all of them. The question is, and this is to give you a chance to summarise the aim of your book, what exactly do you hope to change in your readers? Can you say what specifically is wrong with what people are thinking today, and then say what you’d like them to know, think, believe etc.
Derek: It’s a tricky question but a good one. Personally, I’m not a soap-box kind of guy. I’m pensive, solitary and usually silent – although when there is an issue that is being misunderstood, an injustice or even just an opinion not being voiced, I’ll usually be the person that puts it all out on the table.
I’m not involved in any social movements, I don’t go to meetings, and I’m not really a team-player. So the thought of getting a great deal of attention to myself and my book is really scary. I’d like to think my book is part of category two: providing information. Unfortunately the information I’m providing goes against the grain of many people’s most cherished beliefs and ideologies. There are many, many reference books that share amazing, revolutionary information – and apart from a few bookworms nobody will ever read them. I’ve always been astounded that I have to defend the views I’ve gained after a great deal of research from those who know very little about history at all.
So on the one hand, I probably have a bit of a chip on my shoulder from playing the defensive role. On the other hand, I am trying to share information that I consider to be extremely worthwhile with people who otherwise have no interest in the subject of religious history. Most reference books (category two) are filled with a great wealth of knowledge, but are too tedious or boring for the public. The great majority of people read for entertainment only: hence I’ve tried to make my book interesting enough to catch the attention of non-readers or people looking for a popular non-fiction to take the beach.
As for category three, I don’t think I’m a strong enough writer to “change people’s mind”. If the book was more thrilling, more suspenseful, with greater mystery and rhetoric, then yes it might be possible. What’s more likely is that people who are undecided, who are really open to a novel view of religious history, who are already seeking information, will be attracted and find in the book edification for their personal beliefs. And it might also challenge or upset conservative fundamentalists – but I doubt it will cause them to abandon their faith.
Basically, the information provided in the book is generally available but not accessible; there is also the false assumption that it is impossible to make the claim I’m making (that Jesus may have been completely literary) because it has ‘already been disproved’ or there is ‘no evidence’. While I might not be right, I hope my book will at least become a new piece of the puzzle providing answers to other seekers.
“Can you say what specifically is wrong with what people are thinking today, and then say what you’d like them to know, think, believe etc.” Yes: I think it is dangerous for a religion to be based on a false history. Faith that something happened historically, despite evidence, is very different from faith in God, a soul or salvation. Rather than faith in something that can’t be seen or heard, this kind of faith forces people to doubt what they can see or hear – refusing to look at or consider contrary evidence. It’s an untenable truth which demands a violent sacrifice of reason. While I am aware that such a sacrifice can have its benefits, as well as the limitations of our senses, I maintain that it is always better to push forward to a fuller appreciation of knowledge rather than accept a static faith that places barriers and limitations for intellectual expansion.
I don’t criticize religion in general. I don’t doubt that (the idea) of Jesus can be a powerful and life-changing force in many people’s lives. I simply expect that if anyone make historical claims, that their claims be at least plausible. It is not the case – in my opinion – that we can’t ever know what really happened or who Jesus was and so each individual’s personal choice is permissible. If they make a historical claim, that is something the evidence needs to support; especially when the claim dictates international policy (for example, Bush’s war on the axis of “evil” or the US support of Israel.)
I believe the evidence is on my side, and I’d like it if this was more commonly appreciated.
Hans: You know, you sound exactly like Julian Assange. How would you react to a proposition that your book is “The Wikileaks of Christianity”? That would multiply your sales a hundredfold! To what extent could your work be compared to Wikileaks? To what extent is this comparison inappropriate? Julian also says his work is to provide information and what people do with it is up to them.
Derek: It’s a great title for the book, wish I’d thought of it. Maybe I’ll turn it into a free ebook. 
I’d be honored to be compared to Julian Assange – at first. After all, he’s achieved fame, notability, stardom and awards in journalism. And concerning his “leaks” that undermine national stability and protection, I suppose the comparison holds. I’m not concerned with protecting the stability of a society that continues to be interwoven with aspects of traditional religious beliefs. I would probably support a breakdown of society, a revolution, a new management structure that reformed some of the exceedingly large errors in modern civilization (dependence on oil, foreign policy of domination, superiority complex, educational, bureaucratic and health care issues) which I feel can all be linked, or at least are supported by, to some extent with religious values.
And like him, when the book outs, I will probably go hide in a dark hole somewhere afraid of negative or even violent retaliation.
If my book was banned by the big media or corporations, and an army of hackers went to work on my behalf shutting down Amazon for not listing it or Barnes & Noble for not stocking it, I might be tickled. But if people started using it for real violence (bombing a bookstore) I’d have harsh condemnation for them.
There does need to be a limit. Also, Julian seems to be putting out information that is absolutely of no use to anyone – except terrorists; such as where the Ethernet cables run under the ocean connecting to Taiwan. Nobody needs to know that, and nobody cares – except possible a terrorist group looking to wreak havoc or begin an invasion.
I don’t think my book is in the same league. Are you asking if I should take responsibility for the consequences of the book? I think I’d side with Julian.I’m not concerned with protecting the stability of a society that continues to be interwoven with aspects of traditional religious beliefs. I would probably support a breakdown of society, a revolution, a new management structure that reformed some of the exceedingly large errors in modern civilization (dependence on oil, foreign policy of domination, superiority complex, educational, bureaucratic and health care issues) which I feel can all be linked, or at least are supported by, to some extent with religious values.
Hans: Wikileaks became top news when it exposed the killing of civilians in Iraq by American soldiers in a helicopter. These soldiers were aiming and shooting at civilians trying to help wounded people. The “leak” revealed that the soldiers were perceiving the shooting of their fellow human beings as if playing a video game.
One would assume from that that people like Julian Assange acted out of indignation and compassion. I assume he felt very angry.
Should we feel indignant at things done in the past by the religious authorities? Have there been victims for whom we should feel compassion? Is there cause for feeling real anger?
If so, are you dealing with that aspect in your book?
Derek: The short answer is “Yes”. When victims are harmed, when any kind of injury or violence is perpetrated, especially upon the innocent, by the powerful against the weak, there should always be someone who feels contempt, gets angry and intervenes. And yes I’m aware of the many examples of atrocities committed in the name of religion, which continue today.
However I didn’t focus on that subject in my book, and this is why:
1) First, the argument is already being made by many people who are anti-religious. It’s an easy argument to make: “Religion doesn’t make people be good” and can actually be harmful. So why have religion at all? But I’m attempting to keep value judgments out of my book and focus on history, which is something I can prove. The book simply has no room to be making both the argument that “religion is bad” and “Jesus was literary”. They are totally different subjects.
2) Also, the argument against religion based on history fails every time to convince the religious. If you point out either the literal violence and ugliness of the old testament, or the violence in church history, Christians will shrug and say “of course. Humans are sinful. That’s why we need God”. In other words, while everyone can recognize certain actions as being tragic or unfortunate, the religious will fail to be convinced that religion is the root of these problems. Somehow the ugly history of the church is seen as distant past, very different from modern, enlightened Christianity.
On the other hand, my argument should be more difficult to deal with. I am countering things that they believe to be historical, and I hope making a strong case that I’m right. Their faith is in a sense bound in history, and if they come to understand that that history is open to question, I think it can have more of an impact than the first argument.
Benjamin: As a seeker why would one even begin to argue?What merit is there on dwelling on such things for extended periods?
Derek: Benjamin raises a valid point; and for most of my life I’ve led a non-engagement policy. I don’t live for the fight, I don’t necessarily have anything to prove. I’m not writing the book specifically to target or counter Christians. I am personally, very interested in the subject. I enjoy researching it and writing about it. So “avoiding conflict” would mean deliberately not doing something and sharing something I enjoy because of what people might think.
I’m very happy, spiritually. I got rid of my existential angst as a philosophy student. I avoid 1 on 1 debates because they are trivial. But to write a book and hide it seems pointless; I do think there is value in the book enough to have it shared (and if sharing, why not do so boldly rather than meekly? What right/cause do I have to be meek about my position?)
I should add: when I was younger, I was more in touch with the non-attachment of zen Buddhism and Taoism, ie show no passion, let life drift past you without feeling emotionally involved.
I’ve since developed a stance which diverges from such classical spirituality. Religious and spiritual traditions prioritize the next life; focus on purifying the spiritual body, etc. And this, is probably a good idea. But the highest virtue, the ultimate sacrifice, would be giving up personal salvation to help those still stuck in the mire… in this manner it becomes a greater spiritual legacy to give up my own concern with salvation and eternity and instead pay attention to the suffering in the world and attempt to help where I can (not that I have much to offer or think I’m a saint or anything – I’ve just traded in a next life philosophy for an almost anti-spiritual understanding of the importance of this life, this world.)
I don’t claim this is a ‘wiser’ position, it probably isn’t: but it’s the path I’ve chosen to head down.
