Overdoing It
The attacks on The Da Vinci Code, book and film, have been so widespread that I'm starting to feel sympathy for Dan Brown.
I mean as much as Code is big on absurd conspiracy theories, it does raise some worthwhile points and questions. For instance, it is true that the Church adopted and adapted some pagan symbols and rituals. Also, it's at least worth discussing the effect of Christianity (and other religions) on the treatment of women.
So let's not condemn everything wholesale. And remember, Dan Brown being wrong doesn't make his opponents right.
For instance, in Friday's Wall Street Journal Joseph Loconte (channeling C. S. Lewis) tries to debunk some Code claims. (Michael Novak does the same thing in the National Review.) But look at his arguments.
Part of Loconte's evidence is that there are "any number of people and events in the Bible that are frankly embarrassing to believers....[y]et the earliest Christians failed to excise these characters from their story." This is a triple-bad bad argument, since 1) it isn't clear the original writers thought these stories embarrasing, 2) Christians aren't the only ones who tell stories that seem embarrassing today, and 3) even if the previous two points weren't true the argument still doesn't prove very much. (And what's one of his examples of embarrassment? The bloodline of Jesus includes "a king who commits adultery and murder (David)." Yeah, you wouldn't want the royal lineage of David in your family tree.)
And listen to this:
The first "conspiracy theory" about Jesus, in fact, actually appears in the Gospel of Matthew. After the crucifixion, religious leaders ask Pontius Pilate to post a guard at the tomb of Jesus because they suspect his disciples "may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead." Why keep a story about a possible conspiracy lodged at the heart of your sacred text if you're determined to cover up a deception about the credibility of that text?Huh!?! This is precisely the kind of story that would be made up (consciously or unconsciously) to make one's claims stronger, and to inoculate against future conspiracy theories or, more likely, fight against those that already exist.
Let's not make bad arguments to defeat worse ones.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:27 AM
5 Comments:
Students at Central Washington University over The Da Vinci Code. “Even if it’s just fiction,” a student opined, “it’s still interesting to think about.”
To which another student replied: “Your mother’s a whore.” And then, to the first student’s stunned incredulity, he added, “And even if that’s just fiction, it’s still interesting to think about.”
Congratulations, anonymous, I believe you're our 10,000th hit!
I'm not sure what annarborguy is calling aburd. He should be more specific. If he's talking about how ridiculous The Da Vinci Code's ultimate conclusion about the past, I agree. But just because many of the theories of Dan Brown (or actually the people he got them from) aren't true doesn't meant absolutely everything he says is false or worthless. (And let's not forget this is a novel, not a monograph.)
There are many authors whom I disagree with, but that doesn't mean I can't learn from them. General disagreement doesn't mean 1) all the arguments or claims made along the way are wrong or 2) that even wrong arguments can't be worth discussing.
(I listed two things in particular about The Da Vinci Code--that the Church has borrowed from pagan rituals and symbols (I was also going to add that this is also something a lot of people don't know), and that there's an argument that some religions may have made life worse for women; on the first point, does annarborguy disagree?--I would think he'd know this as a fact--and on the second, ford he think there's no point in even asking if a religion (as practiced) has good or bad effects on how people live?)
There are also authors who write on evolution whom I disagree with--in fact, quite a few. This doesn't mean I dismiss them all or think their ideas aren't worth talking about. (On the other hand, Behe's work is pretty worthless. If you know of any points he makes that are worth discussing (for reasons other than people who don't know any better believe them) then let me know.)
As to anonymous's point, it's pretty funny. Of course, as any Jesuit can tell you, it's pure casuistry.
Two quick Da Vinci Code observations:-
1. Why is it so popular- it can't be Dan Brown's writing style- there are plenty of poorly and average-written thrillers (disclosure- I liked it but would never confuse it with history) that don't get anywhere near this kind of readership- possibly through the subject, the supposed scholarly tone, and a basic mistrust of organized religion ranging from sex abuse scandals to fear of increased evangelical political power.
2. The book does help to highlight an important issue and potential weakness with the claims of organized religion- grossly oversimplifying, the books of the new testament were decided upon some 350 years after the gospel events they depict-A group of church leaders made this decision and said it was the "inspired word of God". Who these leaders are and what special god-given talents they had to determine the truth is not particularly well-known or explained. These enlightened leaders or, to others, "stale pale males" might have been eliminating the sacred femine, or overcoming the Gnostics in an internecine turf war or truly been inspired to the truth for all I know. Its funny that that this particular aspect of Christianity doesn't get more attention. (see works of Bart Ehrman for background, though he has swung from evangelicial to non-believer so may be a little extreme)
I’m not sure about the sympathy part – I have a hard time sympathizing with anyone who has that large a bank account – but I would agree that a lot of the criticism we’re reading now is just the equivalent of whipping a dead horse.
I read and enjoyed the book a few years ago. At the time, I was struck by – to me, at least – just how old-hat many of the “revelations” in his story were. Anyone with any knowledge of mythology is well aware of how cultures have co-opted the symbols and rituals of previous cultures and stories about Jesus supposedly having a “special” relationship with Mary Magdalene are not new. Frankly, I learned more things I didn’t know in his earlier novel “Angels and Demons” and thought it a better book. Dan Brown writes in the style of a Robert Ludlum: lots of chapters, most of them short, each one ending in a cliffhanger designed to keep you reading until you reach the breathless climax and discover that you’ve just digested something of an empty meal. Ludlum even tried his hand at a similar subject. In his book “The Gemini Contenders”, the Church was hiding a secret it would kill for: that the Son of God was actually twins, one of whom (or maybe his heir, it’s been a while since I read the book) was still alive.
Sound familiar?
As far as the treatment of women is concerned, Christianity (and the Catholic Church, in particular) has a long, well-documented history of outright abuse and denigration of women and their role in a patriarchal system. Again, this is nothing new. After reading about how The Da Vinci Code was researched and written – and his wife’s role in it – my feeling was that the book was their way of thumbing their nose at some of the Church’s more backward teachings.
FWIW, I thought the movie was well done. It’s never as exciting watching a movie when you know what’s going to happen but there were several logistical challenges to bringing so much information to the screen and I thought Ron Howard and company handled it pretty well. A boffo opening weekend was expected and delivered. Now it remains to be seen if it has any legs. Personally, I’d give it a “B”.
If you'll scroll back a bit, you'll see I already commented on how silly The Da Vinci Code's ideas are in general. Not that I have to. If a book is 99% silly and 1% intriguing, there's nothing wrong with my choosing to concentrate on the 1%.
I didn't say anonymous's argument was trickery. I simply meant he was literally arguing from cases, which isn't good enough. Analogizing something may illuminate the argument, but it generally doesn't prove your case. (Of course, I recognize he's making a joke.)
I'm not that interested in discussing Brown's particular arguments. I merely was noting, in the midst of all this criticsm, that the book has points worth pondering. If you want to know what he says, read the book, or at least a summary on a website.
Post a Comment
<< Home