Deconstructing Da Vinci (part 4)
The “Experts”
The scholars mentioned most prominently in the HBHG are Elaine Pagels, Hugh Schonfield, and Morton Smith. None of these scholars take the Biblical documents seriously, and all of them go way beyond the pale of rationality to embrace anything other than what the written record conveys.
Choosing only those experts, which support our view and then selling that view as the accepted expert opinion is disingenuous at best and amounts to cherry picking. For this reason alone, the book fails the test of true scholarly enquiry.
Here’s another example of the authors’ bias in determining the outcome of their investigation:
“Even before we began our research, we ourselves were agnostic,
neither pro-Christian nor anti-Christian…Thus, when our research
led us to Jesus, we could approach him with what we hoped was a
sense of balance and perspective. We had no prejudices or
preconceptions one way or the other, no vested interests of any kind,
nothing to be gained by either proving or disproving anything. Insofar
as ‘objectivity’ is possible, we were able to approach Jesus objectively.”
Emphasis mine. (Holy Blood, Holy Grail; p 408, para 1)
First, the authors mistakenly believe that their agnosticism makes them neutral concerning matters of faith. But how can they “say” they have no preconceptions or prejudices when prior to this they admit a preconception of agnosticism? Second, they equate their alleged neutrality with being objective in their investigation. However, if you are starting with the presupposition that your interpretive construct is true before the fact, how can you claim to be objective?
Quoting again from HBHG:
“We are well aware, of course, that our research has led us to Conclusions
that, in many respects, are inimical to certain basic tenets of modern
Christianity—conclusions that are heretical, perhaps even blasphemous.
From the standpoint of certain established dogma we are no doubt guilty
of such transgressions. But we do not believe that we have desecrated, or
even diminished, Jesus in the eyes of those who revere him. And while
we ourselves cannot subscribe to Jesus’ divinity, our conclusions do not
preclude others from doing so.” Emphasis mine
(Holy Blood, Holy Grail; p 408, para 4)
The point here is if you begin your investigation with the presupposition or bias of agnosticism, and read all the data through that lens, then of course you’ll come out with an agnostic view of Jesus.
In Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln’s own words, they “cannot subscribe to Jesus’ divinity.” This view is perfectly consistent with their prejudices. Their conclusions then, regarding the nature and subsequent mission of Jesus were decided a priori. This is in contradistinction to simply being willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
In the next and final installment we will examine the "poor method" employed by the authors in their fact finding mission.
After reading this critique, I can’t help but wonder who exactly would be qualified to reasearch the actual divinity of christ? All humans are “biased”, and all studies start out with “preconceptions”, that’s the point of doing a study or reasearch to see if your hypothesis is correct. To dismiss the book and its claims because of this is simply nonsense, and only further supports the reality that hyper religious people cannot stand, nor will they tolerate any criticism of their rigid beliefs. I guess it would be better if someone who was already convinced of jesus’ divinty did the reasearch because obviously they would have no “bias” whatsoever.
I wish so-called “christians” spent more doing “christian” deeds such as helping the poor and downtrodden, feeding the hungry, spreading peace and love, understanding, tolerance etc. You know, practicing what they preach? If “christians” spent as much time obsessing over these problems as they do books, movies, and gay people we may actually be able to end poverty in this country. Of course, I’m obviously “biased”.
Hi Doug,
I think you missed the point. It’s one thing to have biases or presuppositions. It’s quite another to allow them to determine the outcome of your investigation. Moreover, the authors’ logic regarding the scriptures is that since they (scriptures) are human in orgin, they are errant. This is a contradictory statement. It doesn’t satisfy its own requirements and thus self-destructs.
Let’s assume that their premise is true. If the fact that something is human in origin necessitates errancy, then no truth claims can be made about anything,(including the ones you made in your post).
That’s basically the long way around the barn to say that just because man can make errors, doesn’t mean that he always will make errors.
Doug, the other point I pressed in my critique was that the authors cooked the data beforehand by “weighting” their control group. If you’re going to test a hypothesis, then by all means do so. But the authors never invite testing, instead choosing to “cherry pick” their data in order to arrive at the “right” conclusion.
Finally, concerning your “moralizing” about Christians fulfilling their job description: Please tell me how Christians are responsible for poverty? That is, after all what you’re implying. If Christians would do this or that, then maybe we could end poverty–as if the reason the world is so screwed up is because of Christians. Is that what you mean to say Doug? Just curious…let me know.
BTW, thanks for visiting the site and posting. I look forward to recieving your upcoming article.
You are in fact correct. There are no absolute truths. Reality is subjective. For example, if i hold up three fingers six inches in front of your face, what do you see? Three fingers of course. But what if I hold up those same fingers sixty feet in front of a person who is almost blind? How many fingers are there? What if they only can make out one? Or none, and it just looks like a blob? Whose reality is correct and whose reality is incorrect? It depends on who you ask doesn’t it? Who should get to “absolutely” decide such a thing? You? Me? And ultimately does it matter? The notion that the bible is errant is correct. It was written by people who had a vested interest in it being taken as the literal word of god. Why just by changing a couple of words you could change the meaning of an entire passage couldn’t you? To assume the bible is actually the “word of god”, and that it was written without bias or error is an example of your bias. You believe it is the “word of god”, and therefore to you that’s exactly what it is. But to someone else, maybe it’s not. Maybe it’s nothing more than a bunch of fables, or maybe it’s complete mythos and no different than the greek mythos. But you believe you are “absolutely” correct. And so does the muslim in pakistan believe his religion is the “one” and “only” truth with just as much passion and certainty as you. Which one of you is correct? The desire for absolute truth is a natural human desire. We want meaning to what so often appears to be a random and cold existence. Yet, doesn’t this desire also stem for the human desire to control? And isn’t control an illusion?
Oh, and I never said Christians were “responsible” for poverty, as in they created it. What I said is that according to Jesus you most certainly have a moral obligation to help those who suffer in this world. In fact, I would say that is your highest calling.
Lastly, this discourse in which we are engaged. This “intellectualism”. Isn’t it really a projection of ego? An attempt on the part of both of us to outthink, out clever the other. It is nothing more than fluff. I enjoy it, don’t get me wrong. But let’s be honest.
Lastly, and I mean it this time, you argue that the author’s bias lead him to his conclusion. But didn’t your bias do the same for you. Christians, at least some of them, from what I understand are very threatened by “The Da Vinci Code”, and want nothing more than for it to be proven to be nothing but nonsense. Personally I don’t care either way. My understanding is that it is a “novel” which implies it is fiction. Maybe it’s “historical fiction”, but it’s fiction nonetheless. So my take is this. He attacked what he considered bias, with his bias, while you attacked his bias with your bias, and my bias lead me to sign off and go watch the mavericks beat the redneck miami heat. Have a good evening.
This whole criticism and fear of the DaVinci Code (and in years past The Last Temptation of Christ, various artworks, etc.) and the pandemonium/hatred/groupthink it inspires, reminds me very much of how the Muslim wackos put out a fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie after he published the Satanic Verses, and more recently how some other Muslim wackos called for the heads of those involved in the printing of a cartoon depicting Mohamed as a terrorist.
The similarities are quite striking don’t you think?
See the following two news items and look for the similarities…anger, hatred, groupthink, condemnation, etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4670370.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4987116.stm
Now as far as I’ve heard, most Christian are not calling for the death of those involved with the movie–but I do imagine that quite a few of the more rabid ones would like that–although the head of the Catholic Secular Forum in India has begun a “hunger strike until death”. (Wow that’s smart–kill YOURSELF, that’ll show ‘em!)
No matter which side these extremists are on, however, it all seems like the same thing to me. It’s just that the degree of “protest” that is acceptable in each of the countries is different.
In Pakistan it’s perfectly acceptable to call for the death of “the enemies of Islam” or “the blasphemers”, but in most Western countries you have to be more subtle with your wording and actions. But you can be sure that the anger and hatred directed towards “those that would malign (or even mention the name of) our prophet” is the same–intolerance for any viewpoint other than their own. (Jeeze, it seems to me that if you were secure in your own beliefs that you wouldn’t care what other people thought! Maybe that’s just me though.)
Thats the problem with not thinking for yourself isn’t it? By having your life dictated by some mysterious apparition living in the sky and a book of parables from thousands of years ago, you lose your capacity for true and sublime spirituality…and that’s exactly what the prophets were talking about anyway. Too bad most humans were/are just too simpleminded to comprehend their deeper meanings.
Hi Doug,
Thanks for your post. First, let me say that I appreciate your taking the time put a thoughtful response on my site. You have stated several things which merit a response.
I’ll begin with your describing our discourse as “nothing more than fluff.” I disagree. To me Doug, these kinds of dialogues are very important. I take them seriously. If these kinds of exchanges were nothing more than “Bantha fodder”, I wouldn’t waste my time having them.
Second, you state that, “There are no absolute truths. Reality is subjective.” My question for you is: Are you sure? If so, then your truth claim that there are no absolute truths self-destructs. Putting it another way, if there are no absolute truths, then even the statement, “There are no absolute truths” cannot be true, and is therefore unworthy of belief.
With regard to reality being subjective, I think what you’ve done is confuse perception with reality. When I insert a stick into a pool of water, my perception of the stick is that it bends. But when I grab hold of that stick—feeling it with my fingers, or simply extracting it from the pool, I realize that what I am perceiving is an optical illusion. The fact that I perceive a change in the shape of the stick in no way negates the reality that its shape and molecular structure is unchanged. Experienced people know these kinds of things intuitively. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be around to debate and or negotiate things like rationality, causality, and the basic reliability of sensory perception.
Third, concerning the blaming of Christians for the world’s problems: What you stated was, “I wish so-called “christians” spent more doing “christian” deeds such as helping the poor and downtrodden, feeding the hungry, spreading peace and love, understanding, tolerance etc. You know, practicing what they preach? If “christians” spent as much time obsessing over these problems as they do books, movies, and gay people we may actually be able to end poverty in this country.” Emphasis mine. You made a conditional statement about how the world would be if Christians did this, as opposed to that. The implication is that the world wouldn’t be in the shape it is in if Christians spent more time practicing “X, Y, & Z.” So you really did lay blame at our door. However, I realize that many times people don’t write what they mean, any more than they say what they mean. This is why I asked you if that is what you meant in your statement. The problem arises in that if you mean to say something other than what you’ve written, how can the person on the receiving end know that what you say is de facto what you mean?
Finally, you are assuming that my bias determined the outcome of my investigation a priori. But you have no idea how I arrived at my faith. You have no idea the radical skepticism I brought with me to the investigation some ten years ago. Moreover, there are well known Christians who were once militant atheists, but after investigating the data came to embrace Christian faith. The point I am driving at then is, just because I have a bias one way or another, doesn’t mean that I won’t follow the evidence wherever it leads. Nor does it mean that I automatically dismiss attacks leveled at my faith without further inquiry. That’s more than many of my secular fundamentalist friends are willing to do. Rather than look into it for themselves, they simply parrot the modern folklore against us.
And you thought your comment was long.
Mmm big words Kimo Sabe, hurt Tonto’s brain.
Chadly,
First, perception is reality. I didn’t “confuse” anything. Reality and perception go hand and hand. One is meaningless without the other. It is perception which creates each individual reality. Without perception there is no reality. For example, the “reality” of a sunset over the ocean is that it is beautiful. But before humans existed on this planet, was a sunset beautiful? Does a fox see the sunset as beautiful? Or what about the dinosaurs did they? Is a sunset beautiful without someone there to recognize the beauty? I do not believe these things are innate to the universe. It is humanity, and our ability to perceive in a way no other animal can that creates reality. We are sensory animals. Our senses create our reality. If you couldn’t touch a rock how would you know it was hard? You wouldn’t. A fox has no idea a rock is hard. To a fox rock=pain. Maybe what I’m saying is a little too abstract. Centuries ago they believed the world was flat. Of course it’s not. But because they saw the horizon as flat, to them it was. They existed, and died in a world that was flat. And there reality was shaped by this perception. Just a few years ago we were positive that light traveled 186,000 mps. Recently they discovered variances in the speed of light. But up until that moment when the variance was discovered the “reality” was that light travels 186,000 mps. And if we never discovered the variance the reality would have remained the same. Nothing is static. And what is reality today, is fiction tomorrow. Brad is reading a book with a great example of this, 1984. In the Department of Love Winston is forced to look at his captor’s hand over and over. He’s holding up, if i remember correctly, four fingers. But he will not accept this answer. The answer is “five”. Or maybe it’s vice versa. In the end Winston answers “five”. Not because he is broken and wants his torment to stop, but because he really believes there are five fingers . If there is no one in the room, or the world, to say, “wait a minute, he’s only holding up four fingers, not five.” What is the reality? This is a huge part of Orwell’s book. That reality can be completely distorted and altered so much that it eventually ceases to exist, . Or what about the reasoning behind this war. The reasons have changed several times. WMD’s are not even mentioned any more, but leading up to the war and during the first year or so this is all we heard about. Now we are on a “humanitarian mission”. It’s like the idea of WMD’s never existed. Ironically the WMD’s didn’t exist, but anyway. I have spoken with numerous Reps who say “Bush never said Saddam was an ‘imminent threat’ or that he was trying to purchase enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons.” Yet video tape exists with him saying those exact words. It’s like reality just warped, and history was re-written.If everyone who remembers those videos died, the “reality” would be that he never said those things. And the last and best example I can use in this situation is the idea that fundamentalist Christians follow the Bible “literally”, “word for word”. If God is the creator of reality, than there is no subjectivity. What he says about his creation is absolute. Would you agree? He,after all, is reality. But Christians inject a ton of subjectivity into the words of God. Hell, Christians can’t even agree on the meaning of many of the verses in the Bible. For example, in the Bible there’s a verse in Leviticus calling homosexuality an “abomination”. But there’s a passage two pages before which says “ye shall not eat swine, for it is abomination.” Now if you take those two statements “literally” then you have to conclude that eating sausage, the pig kind, is as much of a sin as sodomy. Yet I’ve never heard of one single Christian protesting outside Bob Evans yelling “abomination” as patrons enter and exit. Why not? What right do Christians have to decide what part of God’s reality they do or do not have to follow? It seems from my “perception” that reality is only “static” or “absolute” when it’s beneficial to whomever is perceiving it. I mean Hell, “I got’s to eat my sausage patties, and God will just have to get over it, but them gays now that’s just plain sick.” Personally, I think eating a ground up pig who rolls in its own filth is more disgusting than two men getting married. I hope these examples are enough. I must say I don’t know how Christians can claim reality is concrete, absolute, etc when they believe in a completely abstract entity that is everything, anything, and nothing all at the same time. Humans create reality, therefore they can change it for either good or bad. The idea that things are “just the way they are” is passive.
Second, you have yet to actually comment on what I said about Christians. You seem more interested in dissecting my sentences. So I’ll try to be very crystal clear. Certain Christians in this country spend a lot of time and invest a lot of energy worrying or obsessing over things which have very little to do with Christianity. The Da Vinci Code is simply a book. (The man is a genius. I wonder how many more books he’s sold because of the Christian outrage over it? I bet you all brought millions extra for the man. Piss off the Christians, get rich). Christians created the stir. Just as Christians invented the fictional “war on Christmas”. This notion that Christians are being “persecuted” is nonsense. YOu are a member of the most powerful religion and living in the most powerful nation in human history. This self imposed martyrdom is disingenuous at best, and a disservice to people who have or who are currently being oppressed in this world. My statement was if Christians spent as much time obsessing over poverty as they do the Da Vinci Code we “may” be able to end poverty in this country. And notice I said “we” both times. It’s interesting I spent six years of my life working with poor people, doing what jesus asked of us. To help our “fellow man” and I’m not even Christian. For two of those years I lived in a forest, under a mosquito net, 24 hours a day, up to 33 days at a time. I’m not asking for a medal I did it because I wanted to, but imagine if every Christian, who bring these expections on themselves by claiming to follow the Bible “literally”, invested six years of their lives helping people instead of ranting about “Hollywood liberals”, and other such nonsense. Less noise and more action please.
Brad,
Hey bro, thanks for your comments. I appreciate the time you and Doug have taken to weigh in on this, and I look forward to hearing more from you guys on various issues.
Interested in posting articles to this site? Let me know. Now to business.
I find it interesting that your commentary obviously shows you care what other people think. If not, why invest time informing us? Why enter the debate? Why comment? It seems to me that by your own standard you are “not secure in your own beliefs.” If you don’t believe in it, then by all means don’t ascribe to it.
Sorry about the order of these posts guys. I’ll try to fix em later. Also, brad could you please resend me your last humorous posts. I published them, but for some reason only one of them went through. Thanks
RE: “I find it interesting that your commentary obviously shows you care what other people think. If not, why invest time informing us?”
As I was writing the comments I was thinking the same thing. Really I don’t care much what others think but I was just helping to add content to your blog.
RE: “It seems to me that by your own standard you are “not secure in your own beliefs.” If you don’t believe in it, then by all means don’t ascribe to it.”
Major misinterpretation buddy. Just because I make a statement or share an opinion doesn’t mean that I’m not secure in my own beliefs. That’s asanine.
I like watermelon. There I said it. But do you really think that make me not secure in my beliefs? If I went around on TV and newspapers trying to convince others that “watermelon is the one and only true fruit”, or if I sent my followers to other countries and tried to convince poor starving people that if they only ate watermelons and stopped eating their local home-grown fruit, that in the next life they’d never be hungry, or if I tried to make laws in the country based on my love of watermelons, or if I threatened to kill people who ate bananas then (in addition to being psycho) you might say that I was someone who is “insecure in their beliefs.” See what I mean?
The point is that I’m not going around calling for the death of people who don’t subscribe to my opinion. I’m not telling people who don’t believe like I do that they are going to burn in hell. I’m not going around threatening people who have other beliefs. That’s the difference.
Whether you believe like I do is immaterial to me. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with me has no sway on my own beliefs. The point of my original statement being that it seems that if a person were truly secure in their own beliefs then they wouldn’t feel threatened by the way others believe. They’d “live and let live” and be happy about it.
To digress just a little. Chad I’ve seen this over and over in your writings. It appears to me that rather than discuss or comment on an idea that you disagree with, you tend to just disect and diagram the sentences looking for any statement or string of words that does not meet you rigid “rules” of logic or grammar. And when you find a sentence that you can “rip apart” then you use that as a way to dismiss the whole argument. It seems to me that you’d rather look for holes in people’s argument than actually discuss the **ideas** that they are putting forth.
It seems to me that thoughts and ideas are the “reality” that we are dealing with here. Words are quite often a poor substitute for the actual thoughts or ideas in people’s brains. Also some people are better than others at putting their thoughts into words and some are downright unable to do it. There is also the fact that people’s thought patterns and for lack of a better word the “wiring” of their brains are different. So for all of these reasons some of what you may consider “holes in logic” are probably not that at all.
But regardless…even if in your opinion there is a hole in the “logic” of someones statement, it is still possible that the idea that they were trying to put forth still has merit. Maybe you could comment on that instead.
But again, here I’ve just wasted 15 minutes defending the misinterpretation of my statements. What a waste of time