Da Vinci Code Protests
July 9th, 2006 by Stephen
In his cloudsoup blog, someone called David writes about yet another storm over the Da Vinci code (this time it is about the film release). Now if you have not had the misfortune of reading this book, then please - don’t bother. I had failed to bother until quite recently when someone persuaded me that it was intelligent and thought provoking, and right up my street. Thanks so much S__, but I would rather have the time back!
But we don’t need to rehash the endless arguments about how wrong a book can be. David’s beef is with Opus Dei (a group much maligned by the book) wanting a disclaimer put on the film saying that it is a work of fiction. (Well yes, we know this, but apparently not everyone does… remember the person who recommended the book to me?)
I know next to nothing about Opus Dei, (although I can translate the name 
). Still, with my lack of knowledge of their organisation, I can understand their anxiety that people who can believe the rest of Brown’s rubbish, might be taken in and think ill of their organisation. At least if they removed the frontispiece from the book that is meant to imply that there is truth in parts of the plot, that would be a start.
But David has no such sympathies. He simply writes:
Hardly believable from an organisation that deliberately promulgates what most of its priests and theologians know full well is a largely fictional account of the pre-literate religion of desert folk.
David is a frequent critic of Christianity, judging by his other blog posts, but this post is just plain loopy. He seems to be buying into the same mythical world that Dan Brown has inhabited, and has set out his stall next to Brown. David wants us to think that there is some kind of conspiracy amongst the Christian theologians and priests whereby they are concealing a truth from their congregations, and that none of them believe what they profess to believe!
No doubt we can name some notable ordained atheists, who believe the Bible is nearly entirely fictional. Donald Cupit and David Spong spring to mind. But there is no conspiracy here. Christians believe the Bible to contain just what it claims to contain. Loads of teaching, much history, some parables and allegory.
Some will disagree about certain parts of the Bible. David is fixated on the first chapter of Genesis, about which the debate over its historical literacy has been raging for about two thousand years or more. But no one seriously doubts the historicity of Jesus or the young church for instance.
Come off it - most respectable theologians don’t pretend to believe any of the resurrection stuff, the son of God stuff, or the miracle stuff.
I don’t think I claimed it was a conspiracy on the part of the clergy - just deliberate lying.
An old friend of mine was obsessed with the ideas in the Da Vinci Code years ago. I thought it was distressingly loopy then and now - as is your belief in a supernatural sky-god who tells you to kill adulterers (I guess you don’t do that), not to eat lobster or crab, and to circumcise your male children.
The ‘debate’, such as it is, about the historical veracity of Genesis, ended centuries ago. Science 1, Religion 0. You’re living in ther past. Somewhere around 1184, I reckon.
Repeated assertion won’t make it any truer. Most theologians certainly do believe in the resurrection etc.
You now claim they are just deliberately lying - but you have offered no evidence for your assertion, and the evidence is all against you, as you would know, were you reading what theologians are saying about these things.
Incidentally, nice straw man on a “supernatural sky-god”. I have never met a Christian that believes in such. The other beliefs you impute to me are also straw men, and I am sure you have a firm enough grasp of Christianity to realise why.
As regards the debate over Genesis, I see I wrote “literacy” when I meant to write “literalness”. This would be why you understood me to be talking about historical veracity, whereas the debate that has raged for 2000 years is over how literally the account should be taken.
The question is whether the creation hymn (which is clearly not witnessed history, and must therefore be revelation) should be taken as a literal account or a figurative one.
Origen and then Augustine both argue for an allegorical interpretation, and on philosophical grounds, Augustine argues for creation in an instant. I happen to be a strong Augustinian on this point, although creation in an instant has - I think - a refined understanding in view of our modern scientific understanding. I’d be happy to discuss it with you if you would be happy to move beyond the attempt to score points with straw man arguments.
Incidentally, did you know that Augustine was the first philosopher to propose a relativistic understanding of time. Bertrand Russell said of Augustine that he did not often stray into the realm of logic, but when he did so he showed very great ability. Augustine used his knowledge of God to arrive at a relativistic view of space and time many centuries before Einstein. He saw time as being a created entity, and thus God is within the universe, and within time, maintaining it and suffusing it, but never constrained by it.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Stephen
I do think, yes, that Christian priests basically lie to their congregations. Unless they’re evangelicals, then they’re just idiotic.
Christians believe in a supernatural deity and I think Gore Vidal’s dig at a ’sky god’ was probably an accurate account of the origin of the myth. Supernatural sky-god sums it up pretty accurately.
You can call Augustine’s conception of time ‘relativistic’ if you like but you’re clearly trying to link a pre-scientific theologian to modern physics, quite unreasonably. It’s an accident of language, that use of the word ‘relativistic’ and Augustine’s account has nothing at all in common with later mathematical descriptions.
Still, I hope you carry on reading Russell.
Three times you have asserted it without a shred of evidence. You do not know many Christian priests. This is just a delusion of yours.
Supernatural sky-god is not even close to accurate. I know of no Christian now or ever who has asserted that God lives in the sky. You might find it interesting to read J N D Kelly’s excellent “Early Christian Doctrines”, where he recounts the formation of the doctrines of the early Church, and the debates surrounding them. In this you will see why this description of yours has never had any currency.
Dan Brown should probably also have read the book. It might have helped him avoid his lamentable failure to get just about any facts right in his book. (But then, this is a man who cannot even use an etymological dictionary to confirm the derivation ot the word “sincerely”, so perhaps that would have been too much to expect).
I did not call call Augustine’s conception of time “relativistic”, Russell did that. (Well I suppose I did say it - but Russell said it first
).
Clearly Augustine was a long way from actually being first to propose the theory of relativity, but just as Democritus hit on the idea of atoms, Augustine did, through logical reasoning, arrive at a relativistic view of time - placing it for the first time as a created thing and not a backdrop on which all things are created.
Note that I did not say that Augustine beat Einstein to an understanding of relativity. I said that he was the first to propose a relativistic understanding of time. Which is true (although clearly incomplete, just as Democritus’ atoms turn out to be a long way from the peculiar reality of the quantum universe).
I’ll carry on reading Russell, Hume, Nietze, Rand and any other philosopher or writer with whom I disagree. I read secular humanist literature, and try to expose myself to as wide a range of contary opinions as possible. The behaviour whereby we prefer to read the things we agree with leads to polarisation of viewpoints, misunderstanding and fear.
The question, of course, is whether you would be willing to read thoughtful works from those with whom you disagree? Perhaps J N D Kelly’s work above for starters. Perhaps, say, a biography of Martyn Lloyd Jones.
You won’t agree with all you read - why should you? But in exposing yourself to another viewpoint you may see that :
a) Christian theologians do not lie to their congregations (I cannot say this has never happened, but certainly they generally do not)
b) There are interesting things to be found in Christian thought and history.
c) That whilst you may well have adquately analysed the assumptions you see in Christian thought, you may become aware of those in your own thought of which you were not prevously aware.
How about it? You could read a book and critique it on your blog. I’ll watch the blog and comment when appropriate. If nothing else, it gives something more interesting to write about then the Da Vinci Code!
For someone pleased to assert a religious faith based on ancient allegory you seem overly keen to pursue a close and literal reading of my remarks. Yes of course I know you don’t believe your God lives in the sky - we can leave aside the question of where, precisely, you think he does live - but my point was, obviously, to refer to the origins of the Old Testament myths of God.
Every priest I’ve met has been an out-and-out liar. They have to be that or stupid, anyway. So don’t give me this ‘assertion’ nonsense; you’re asserting the existence of a supernatural creator of the Universe, so you certainly trump me on questionable assertions, sunshine. Try spelling Nietzsche correctly and give up reading Ayn Rand. Very sophomoric.
I read challenging work most days. Just not mystery-mongers.
I met a Christian down your way - worked with him for a bit - and he was lying sod. Can give you full details if you like but better not do that publicly. He lied about several things, carries on lying to this day, and happily goes to church. It goes that way with just about every Christian I’ve ever met. They’re mostly very poor adverts for their professed beliefs.
I assert a religious faith based on the historicity of Jesus Christ. That is the crux (pun intended) of Christianity, and nothing else. This is something that people fixated on the evolution debate lose sight of. That is perhaps acceptable for those who are not Christians - but I worry at all the time wasted on Creation Science/Intelligent design by Christians who do not seem to appreciate that our faith derives from the death and resurrection of Christ.
You say you know that I don’t believe God lives in the sky, but it therefore eludes me as to why you persist with the “sky god” line. You say it is to do with mythical roots of Christianity, but this is circular. You assert that God is a sky god because of your belief that the roots of Christianity are mythical, and your belief that the roots lie in a sky god. You will forgive me for being unconvinced by this line, which appears to be nothing more than prejudice.
You say that every priest you have met is an out and out liar (and you make other accusations). I note that (a) I have no way to evaluate the varacity of these claims. There are two sides to every story. (b) that you are arguing from the particular to the general. Because you believe the limited number of priests you have met are liars, you assume that all theologians lie to their congregations. This is clearly invalid. It may point to an unfortunate experience of yours, but it says nothing about a generality of theologians. Indeed, because it is clear that many theolgians and priests are not liars, it is clear thay you are incorrect.
Of course I cannot convince you of that, as you seem to have declined my challenge to actually read some of the works of theologians or priests.
As regards Friedrich the Uebermensch, and spelling his name, I have extreme diffculty arranging the letters at the end of his name. I find it much easier just to omit the ones I am not sure about
I also note that Hubert Dreyfus admitted it took him many years to spell that name correctly. Ayn Rand is interesting - particularly political philosophy, but I was particularly mentioning philosophers I have read with whom I disagree. I could have mentioned others, but rather than attempting to brag about my reading habits, my intent was rather to suggest you might like to read something with which you disagree: i.e., some Christian literature.