Deconstructing Da Vinci (part 3)
Epistemological Ettoufee`
There’s an old Chinese proverb which says, “Before drinking the water, consider the source.” Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, I think that’s pretty good advice.
In this day and age however, (at least in the US) you don’t have to worry about what’s coming out of the tap. You do have to worry about epistemology, though. How is it that we know what we know? How do we decide what is worthy of belief and what isn’t? These are questions of epistemology.
I’m not really that surprised when people accept as fact the “pearls of wisdom” dripping from the mouth of some scholar…or even someone pretending to be a scholar (like myself). What concerns me is when people accept as fact the literary musings of a novelist who for all intents and purposes is just trying to sell books.
Dan Brown is no scholar, and even if he was we would still have to test his hypothesis. In order to do that we need to go to the well Brown has drawn his inspiration from. That well is a book entitled Holy Blood, Holy Grail (Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln; Delacorte Press, 1982).
To the writers’ credit the book itself is a readable and compelling tour de force of the conspiracy of history. However, while this work of liberal intellectual rhetoric satisfies conspiracy buffs, it does little in the way of honest scholastic enquirery. The problem is many people have been fleeced into believing it is a work of scholarly import. My superficial treatment here intends to show some reasons why it is not.
Criteria for scholastic enquiry
True scholastic examinations require the writer to invite testing of the very thing he/she is positing. As a literary form, scholarly work demands that the writer give a balanced view—exploring competing theories and marshaling all his/her resources to find what explanation best fits the data. In doing so, both reader and writer benefit from a well reasoned conclusion. This is not the case with Holy Blood, Holy Grail (HBHG).
Instead we have a conspiracy theory based on wild extrapolations from the data. But don’t take my word for it. Concerning this radical “new” interpretation of theGrail Legend, Henry Lincoln, coauthor of HBHG had this to say:
“We don’t know anything about Berenger Saunier the priest. We don’t
Know anything about Pierre Plantard. We don’t know anything about
The Priori of Sion. We know (and that’s the word), we know almost
nothing. The demonstrable and provable facts are very, very few.
All the rest is hearsay evidence, guesswork, and interpretation. None
the books that have been written (including my own) have any validity
whatsoever.”
This is an amazing admission considering it was Lincoln who helped pioneer this movement. But that hasn’t stopped the average layperson from believing that this book is authoritative. Since that is the case, I will focus my attention on exposing why HBHG doesn’t pass the scholastic litmus test.
There are many flaws with the book, but the two we’re going to focus on here are that of bias and poor method.
We all have biases which we bring to any examination. Difficulties arise however, when we allow our biases to do two things: (1) control our source material and (2) determine our conclusions. In the former, our orientation ensures we only use sources which support our thesis. In the latter, we make sure our conclusions are consistent with our presuppositions.
This is why in the field of physics we have theoreticians and experimental physicists. Theoreticians write the explanation. Experimental physicists then audit the explanation by devising a battery of experiments to disprove it. There is a series of “checks and balances” which keep everybody honest by eliminating bias. This method is what separates the science of scholarly enquiry from mere rhetoric.
Scholars have their own set of “checks and balances,” and when they violate those principles they do themselves and their readership a disservice. They end up only telling half the story and so give their subject an unbalanced treatment. This might be fine for the editorial pages of a newspaper but hardly qualifies as scholarly exposition.
For example in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the authors claim a pristine objectivity in their investigation. As we shall see, their choice of scholars, as well as their own metaphysical orientation betrays this claim.
There are a lot more problems with Dan Brown than “epistemological problems”! Take for example his claim that the Council of Nicea debated whether or not Jesus was divine, and that the Council of Nicea chose the Canon. Both of these “historical” (knowingly deceptive?) claims are blatantly false.
The first error is easily refuted because the debate was never about whether Jesus was divine or human, but IN WHAT WAY WAS JESUS DIVINE! The question was not if Jesus was divine in some sense but the question was, “what was the nature of this divinity!” Thus the debate over the greek words homousios and homousious. Also John 1 clearly has a belief in the divinity of Jesus!
Second, the New Testament Canon was unofficially being assembled throughout the end of the first and second century. Dan Brown has nothing to do with history, only deception, and those who read his book and believe it only want to be decieved.
Blake
correction: homoousion and Homoiousion
Yeah Blake,
I wouldn’t be so bold as to say that anybody who gets fleeced into believing this nonsense wants to be decieved. But I would say that a lot of people want to believe there is some kind of conspiracy behind all hierarchies. Dan Brown’s novel just gives people an excuse to distrust the claims of Christianity in general and Christians in particular.
There’s no substantiation for Brown’s claims. However, many who have bought into Browns version of church history have a sort of anti-faith, which they dogmatically cling to…sort of a Dan Brown said it; I believe it; and that settles it mentality.
Some pseudoscholar/anti-lectual sent a spam comment to my blog claiming that the NT was unreliable and the Da Vinci Code was the gospel truth–”his” source??? One of the most liberal newspapers in the country. Gee if you can’t trust the NY Times or the Washington Post for your biblical exegesis who can you trust? If it wasn’t so pathetic, it’d be laughable. I just wish I could’ve put the garbage on display for you and the rest of the free world before I took it to the curb. Anyway, if the “person” who sent me the spam comment happens to read this, why don’t you take some time and hack your comments manually. That way I can share it with my fellow cyberjunkies. chow
i did not mean those who are fleeced, for ignorance, but later look into more and realize that Da Vinci is a lie. The people that I mentioned who want to be decieved, are those who defend the Da vinci code, they are like the people who believe Jesus never existed, or that the gnostic gospels are a reliable source for reconstructing the historical Jesus.
The Da Vinci code is just another sad symptom of the major problem in the modern Western world, which is the problem of the cultures inellectual life. We are the most advanced society in the history of the world, but maybe the most ignorant (on the common persons level) in things like Philosophy, history, literature. The scholarship is better, but the common man in the street never rises above the day to day worries like money, job, and the “practical” aspects of life. It has become such a problem, that people actually push the religous aspect of their lives to the part that is “not practical” or as something that can be done in our spare time. So it is not Da vinci that I have a problem with, but the Church and the culture that allows garbage like this to stand. I indict the Church for this though, it is the churchs fault that it allows the Joel Olsteens and Joyce Myers of the world to run rampant and sow wickedness among the people of God
My one and only question right from the start has been; Why/how is it that DaVinci, above everyone and everything else, seemingly has ALL the answers?
I just don’t get it. And “They” say “We” are the weak minded who need something to cling to, something to believe in.
I concur. Tomorrow, I’m going to get the next post in on the subject and maybe that will help you see what we’re up against. Part of the problem is many want to believe in Brown’s claims. Another problem is that it appears that there are a lot of folks out there who can’t differentiate between a counterfeit and the real thing.
It’s amazing to me how Curmudgeon and Chad both spout out their *opinions* as if they are undebatable facts. I’ll spout out my own thoughts below with the disclaimer that these are my opinions and observations.
RE: Chad
“There’s no substantiation for Brown’s claims. However, many who have bought into Browns version of church history have a sort of anti-faith, which they dogmatically cling to…sort of a Dan Brown said it; I believe it; and that settles it mentality.”
So do you think that your version of “history” and your belief system is not influenced by this also? Are you under the mistaken impression that you are not also “dogmatically clinging” to your own belief system? Yes, of course you are.
Substitute “The Bible” for “Dan Brown” and that is exactly what you are doing and saying–”…which they dogmatically cling to…sort of The Bible said it; I believe it; and that settles it mentality.” Yep it’s the exact same thing. Why can’t you see that? Blinded by your “own reality” I think.
RE:
“We are the most advanced society in the history of the world, but maybe the most ignorant (on the common persons level) in things like Philosophy, history, literature.”
In many ways that statement is a load of hogwash but I do agree with the part of it about people being ignorant of history and literature. (Too many books banned by religious types I guess
First of all we are not more ignorant about philosophy at all. Just because many people don’t want to cling to a 2000 year old version of it, does not mean that they are ignorant of philosophy. Perhaps some people have just seen a better way and have seen through the lies/misinterpretations/dogma of the past. Maybe some have freed themselves from the tyranny of past philosophies and feel that they are better off because of it. That does not mean they understand less about philosophy just that they don’t accept YOUR VERSION of it.
You know, the Taliban/Islam too clings to a version of how the world “should” be and how their “god” wants them to live. You see how the world is benefiting from that don’t you. Murder, war, women walking around in burlap sacks, kids being kept from being educated because the Taliban doesn’t agree with the “secular” teachings. (Kind of like how the Bush administration suppresses science that doesn’t support their philosophies/agendas and how Christians are complaining that ideas other than their own are destroying “our” way of life.)
But if you get right down to it Curmudgeon, Chad, other Christians, isn’t that what you want too–a world that adheres to your version of reality based on your beliefs in your own philosophy/religion? That seems to be the whole basis of all of these arguments. That your opinion of how the world should be is the only true, correct, and godly way? Two sides of the same coin isn’t it?
Why don’t you guys worry more about your own thoughts, mind, spirituality, than pop culture? Isn’t spirituality a personal thing?
You believe what you want to to believe and that’s fine. Why can’t you just leave it at that?
Why do religious types (of any persuasion) seem to have a pathological need to prove that they are correct and that everyone else it wrong? Why do they feel the need to convert others? Why do they feel the need to control the thoughts and actions of others? Why do they think that everyone needs to think the way that they do?
People who are insecure in their thoughts and actions need the support and validation of others to reinforce their beliefs that they are correct. Maybe that is why the very types of people who are so drawn to religion are the very types that religions and other control organizations/regimes/political parties prey upon.
If you’re unhappy, poor, uneducated, hopeless, oppressed, need a crutch, feel unappreciated, feel week, feel empty, etc. then you are ripe to be taken advantage of by anything that promises you a better life (either now or after death). That promise of a better life/situation can come in the form of escape of you current situation (drugs, alcohol, sex), fixation on material things (money, cars, homes, ipods), joining a group (Alcoholics Anonymous, the marines, a gang, a church, the nazi party, the socialist party, republican or democratic party) or the promise of a better life after you are dead (religions, cults).
I submit that if people did the scariest and most difficult thing of all–looking inside of themselves and dealing with their own demons–that they would not need the outside distractions and controls that the above-mentioned crutches provide.
Isn’t “epistemology” what they do to women during childbirth?
That’s a joke in case you didn’t get it!
Brad makes some good points. A little harsh, but good. If religion, A.A., hillbilly heroin or whatever makes you happy that’s great. I know religion has changed people’s lives, just as I’ve witnessed A.A. change people’s lives when I worked as a counselor. But just as everyone who drinks is not an alcoholic, not all of us need our souls saved. We are doing just fine. Be happy you’ve found something you love, enjoy, and are passionate about. I can assure you most of the world has not been so lucky. But let it be at that. There is no Utopia. Every form of Utopia tried in history be it right wing (fascism) or left wing (communism) failed miserably. Utopia is a nice way of saying “HELL”. If everyone in the world was like me or like you all it would suck. Imagine a world like this, “Hey Bill how you doing?” “Oh great just praising Jesus for each and every moment. How about you?” “Oh great just praising Jesus for each and every moment. “Hey here comes Don. Hey Don how you doing?” “Oh great just praising Jesus for each and every moment.” “Really that’s what we were doing. Want to go to Church and praise Jesus for each and every moment with about 10,000 other people?” (In unison) “Praise Jesus!” PUKE. How long before you’d put a gun in your mouth?