Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 03-19-2005, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ceverante

An epitomic example of double standard. I don't see these Dan Brown critics, especially the church applying the same criticism to other works of fiction. I don't see public statements made to assert that brooms cannot fly aka Harry Potter. I don't see historians presenting records to show that the One Ring does not exists aka Lord of the Rings, or that Gandalf did NOT have special powers.

Da Vinci Code made the same amount of outrageous claims as in other works of fiction, why is he the only one being critisized?

The difference is that many people (I'm not sure if Brown is included) have suggested or even explicitly asserted that this fictional work is at least partially factual. To my knowledge and with the exception of certain chucklehead fundies fearing the magic of Harry Potter is real, no one has done the same with regard to the Potter books or LOTR.

Ceverante · 03-20-2005, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

The difference is that many people (I'm not sure if Brown is included) have suggested or even explicitly asserted that this fictional work is at least partially factual.

Other fiction books has the same characteristic. London does indeed have a train station, that does not mean it has a Platform 9 and 3/4. DNA of dinosaur does exists, so does advance technology in bio-cloning, but that does not mean we can build a Jurassic Park with cloned dinos running around. I still don't see why Brown should be singled out by these critics, except for a personal sensitivity to things that they don't like to see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

To my knowledge and with the exception of certain chucklehead fundies fearing the magic of Harry Potter is real, no one has done the same with regard to the Potter books or LOTR.

I know, but I just don't fully why the descrepancies.

Amaleq13 · 03-21-2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ceverante

Other fiction books has the same characteristic. London does indeed have a train station, that does not mean it has a Platform 9 and 3/4. DNA of dinosaur does exists, so does advance technology in bio-cloning, but that does not mean we can build a Jurassic Park with cloned dinos running around. I still don't see why Brown should be singled out by these critics, except for a personal sensitivity to things that they don't like to see.

If people were going around claiming that we could build a Jurassic Park, others would might feel compelled to disabuse them of their misconception. Likewise, when people go around claiming that this claim or that claim from Brown's book is actually true, others feel compelled to make a correction similarly public.

Ceverante · 03-22-2005, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Likewise, when people go around claiming that this claim or that claim from Brown's book is actually true, others feel compelled to make a correction similarly public.

Then we get idiots from both side. Brown's book is clearly labeled as fiction. Which part of 'fiction' does these people don't understand? Some of these critics at the same time claim the bible as literally true... the irony is sickening.

yardie · 03-23-2005, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jmebob

EV how could you have missed the quote just below that:

Quote:

Cardinal Bertone told Il Giornale: "The book is everywhere. There is a very real risk that many people who read it will believe that the fables it contains are true."

I needed to clean the screen after that. I wonder if he's ever heard the word irony .

I felt the same way. Makes one wonder....

My second post BTW. First in a "proper" thread. Hi all.

andrewcriddle · 04-01-2005, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

...Suing on what grounds, I wonder?

Wasn't Holy Blood, Holy Grail presented as fact, rather than fiction? How can Baigent and Leigh claim copyright on a plotline based on allegedly historical events they discovered, rather than invented?

If they now admit that it was fiction in order to sue Brown: surely Brown can respond by saying that he didn't know it was fiction, because they claimed otherwise?

FWIW I was reading Sharan Newman's excellent 'The Real History behind the Da Vinci Code' and came across something viz a viz Baigent and Leigh I hadn't spotted before.

Leigh Teabing the 'Grail Scholar' in 'The Da Vinci Code' has a name based on Baigent and Leigh. Leigh is obvious and Teabing is an anagram of Baigent.

(Others may have realised this at once but I didn't get it till Sharan Newman pointed it out.)

Andrew Criddle

Awmte · 04-01-2005, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ceverante

An epitomic example of double standard. I don't see these Dan Brown critics, especially the church applying the same criticism to other works of fiction. I don't see public statements made to assert that brooms cannot fly aka Harry Potter. I don't see historians presenting records to show that the One Ring does not exists aka Lord of the Rings, or that Gandalf did NOT have special powers.

Da Vinci Code made the same amount of outrageous claims as in other works of fiction, why is he the only one being critisized?

I think you left out a glaringly obvious example: the Bible. Maybe the church should evaluate its sacred cow on the same standards as it does other books.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
--Stephen F Roberts

Tristan C. · 06-11-2005, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

1. There is no evidence for this and while it's not impossible that HJ (if he existed) might have had children, there is no evidentiary support for the Merovingian "Holy Blood" theory of a bloodline descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene. There is no good evidence that MM even existed.

2. There is a real Opus Dei and it has some weirdness to it but the book exaggerates it and gets some things factually wrong (it's not a monastic order, for instance). Information about is mixed and contradictory but here is their official homepage and here are a couple of more critical looks at it.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionande...444/cover.html
http://www.americamagazine.org/artic...in-opusdei.cfm

3. The RCC, like most other western religious institutions, has a long history of male chauvinism, autocratic patriarchy and institutional subordination of women. However, that does not translate into a historical suppression of Mary Magdalene as a religiously or historically significant figure.

Of course there's no evidence for anything that occured in the bible. As it says in the book, what is history but what the winners want it to be? The church was the winner in history, and so it decided what history it wanted to keep or not. Also, Mary magdalene was specifically called a prostitute by the church and the new bible. She was put down by the church not because they are chauvinist, but because the church was alot like what happened in Waco, Texas. All the church wanted was power and control, so they took what everyone already believed, changed it to suit them better, and published it in a book called the Bible. I believe this because that is what anyone with the power to do that would do.

Tristan C. · 06-11-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ceverante

An epitomic example of double standard. I don't see these Dan Brown critics, especially the church applying the same criticism to other works of fiction. I don't see public statements made to assert that brooms cannot fly aka Harry Potter. I don't see historians presenting records to show that the One Ring does not exists aka Lord of the Rings, or that Gandalf did NOT have special powers.

Da Vinci Code made the same amount of outrageous claims as in other works of fiction, why is he the only one being critisized?

because his book states, in the first few pages, that everything is based upon real research and experience. My god, why can't you people just accept that maybe, just maybe, the church has lied and manipulated everything to its own advantage?!

Vorkosigan · 06-11-2005, 08:34 PM

Bart Ehrman was just interviewed on Beliefnet: Unpacking 'The Code'
What's true in Dan Brown's 'Da Vinci Code' and what's pure historical fiction?
Interview by Deborah Caldwell

The interview also presented the same irony-meter killing talk as the clerical criticisms:

The difficulty I had reading through "The Da Vinci Code" with that in mind was that most of the descriptions of ancient documents, in fact, are not factual—they’re part of his fiction. But people reading the book aren't equipped to separate the fact from the fiction.(emphasis mine)

That's true of the Bible. But you don't see Bible scholars running around correcting apologists much, do ya? I sure wish they would...

Vorkosigan

06-11-2005, 08:34 PM	#40
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Bart Ehrman was just interviewed on Beliefnet: Unpacking 'The Code' What's true in Dan Brown's 'Da Vinci Code' and what's pure historical fiction? Interview by Deborah Caldwell The interview also presented the same irony-meter killing talk as the clerical criticisms: The difficulty I had reading through "The Da Vinci Code" with that in mind was that most of the descriptions of ancient documents, in fact, are not factual—they’re part of his fiction. But people reading the book aren't equipped to separate the fact from the fiction.(emphasis mine) That's true of the Bible. But you don't see Bible scholars running around correcting apologists much, do ya? I sure wish they would... Vorkosigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.