• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Da Vinci Code vs. The Church Code

FuzzyLogic

New Blood
F
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
6
I'm pretty sure everyone here is aware of the falsehoods in the "Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown. So why am I posting here in current events? Well... "The Da Vinci Code" continues to be a subject of much discussion in the public, and it was recently announced that it is too be made into a movie by Ron Howard and leading man to be Tom Hanks. Thousands, if not millions of people have been led astray by the purported "Facts" in this book... millions more will be when it is a movie. It is a bit distressing that Tom Hanks, who did so well in reporting the history of the Moon missions( From Earth to the Moon Miniseries), would become part of this, but that's not my biggest worry...

My biggest worry is that the only debunkers of the novel appear to be religous zealots who are more worried about protecting the Church then truly re-educating the public as to true historical fact. Dan Brown obviously knows his book is not factual, but he proclaims it to be for publicity. However, his debunkers misrepresent the truth for the sole purpose of furthing the falsehoods of the catholoic church (Ok I am a bit biased here, but not much).

Why doesn't a really credible de-bunker step forward, who is not biased by his feelings for the catholic church? When I saw Mr. Randi speak in Colorado a year or two ago, he was very concerned about all the mis-information the public takes as fact... that is what concerns me now. However, I don't want to see commercially benificial falsehood for Dan Brown replaced by misguided ideological falsehood of the church.

Any other thoughts on this?
 
FuzzyLogic said:
I'm pretty sure everyone here is aware of the falsehoods in the "Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown. So why am I posting here in current events? Well... "The Da Vinci Code" continues to be a subject of much discussion in the public, and it was recently announced that it is too be made into a movie by Ron Howard and leading man to be Tom Hanks. Thousands, if not millions of people have been led astray by the purported "Facts" in this book... millions more will be when it is a movie. It is a bit distressing that Tom Hanks, who did so well in reporting the history of the Moon missions( From Earth to the Moon Miniseries), would become part of this, but that's not my biggest worry...

My biggest worry is that the only debunkers of the novel appear to be religous zealots who are more worried about protecting the Church then truly re-educating the public as to true historical fact. Dan Brown obviously knows his book is not factual, but he proclaims it to be for publicity. However, his debunkers misrepresent the truth for the sole purpose of furthing the falsehoods of the catholoic church (Ok I am a bit biased here, but not much).

Why doesn't a really credible de-bunker step forward, who is not biased by his feelings for the catholic church? When I saw Mr. Randi speak in Colorado a year or two ago, he was very concerned about all the mis-information the public takes as fact... that is what concerns me now. However, I don't want to see commercially benificial falsehood for Dan Brown replaced by misguided ideological falsehood of the church.

Any other thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

There is nothing to "debunk". It is a work of fiction.

Shall we also "debunk" The Wizard Of Oz?
 
The catholic church is big enough and old enough to look after itself.
 
You are both missing the point at the moment. Yes it is a work of fiction. However, just inside the front cover the author specifically states that all the details pertaining the the artifacts discussed are FACTS. He states that his research had him believing in the historidcal theories he discusses in the book.

As you well know, James Randi and his colleuges are against any type of mass misinformation that people follow blindly. People know the story is a work of fiction, but they believe the details within the book are real facts, which they are not, but the author has stated as true. At the louvre and in other parts of France there is now a large group of tourists known as Code-heads, who come asking questions about the details in the book, truly believing that Da Vinci left behind some message.

As for the catholic church "looking after itself" That is certainly not what I am concerned about. I wish the catholic church would die.. it has been controling millions of people through fear and a mythology no more real than the Greek pantheon for centuries. my concern is that the false facts of Dan Brown be replaced with the false facts of Church zealots. We need to prevent mass misinformation, and lack of scientific reasoning, not only in the realm of physics and "paranormal" abilities, but also in analysis of our past. History is a Science as well, where we need to make sure people stop believing in myths, because those myths perpetuate the paranormal into the future.
 
Re: Re: Da Vinci Code vs. The Church Code

The Central Scrutinizer said:
There is nothing to "debunk". It is a work of fiction.

Shall we also "debunk" The Wizard Of Oz?
Click to expand...

I agree but isn't "Crossing Over" with Jonathan Edwards also fiction?

I am somewhat concerned about the fiction. I hate to say that. And really, I just love mysticism.... as fiction. But people seem more supersticious to me now - and more political. Almost like rationalism is under attack.

I see presented as fact on NBC morning news that "The Medium" is based on a true story. This Dubois character is being interviewed about seeing dead poeple in the studio - seriously. They mention how Universities have verified her power.

I don't have cable and tonight I get to pick from ABC showing Billy Graham or Joan of Arcadia. So I opt for what I taped yesterday and watch Mt. Pleasant which is about a girl born of the devil in end times.

I am beginning to wonder if people can tell the difference.

Sorry for rant. Sure it is overdone.

Mrick
 
Re: Re: Re: Da Vinci Code vs. The Church Code

Mrick said:
I agree but isn't "Crossing Over" with Jonathan Edwards also fiction?
Click to expand...

Yes, but it is presented as fact. If you go into the bookstore, you'll find TDC filed under "Fiction"

Mrick said:
I see presented as fact on NBC morning news that "The Medium" is based on a true story. This Dubois character is being interviewed about seeing dead poeple in the studio - seriously. They mention how Universities have verified her power.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with that show, but if this DuBois person claims to be a psychic, and the show is about this DuBois person, and this DuBois person is real, then it is based on a true story. It is fact. Whether his(her?) "psychic powers" are real is doubtful.
 
FuzzyLogic said:
You are both missing the point at the moment. Yes it is a work of fiction. However, just inside the front cover the author specifically states that all the details pertaining the the artifacts discussed are FACTS. He states that his research had him believing in the historidcal theories he discusses in the book.

As you well know, James Randi and his colleuges are against any type of mass misinformation that people follow blindly. People know the story is a work of fiction, but they believe the details within the book are real facts, which they are not, but the author has stated as true. At the louvre and in other parts of France there is now a large group of tourists known as Code-heads, who come asking questions about the details in the book, truly believing that Da Vinci left behind some message.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you've travelled much, but the Louvre really exists. As does the Mona Lisa. As does Westminster Abby, as does the Poets Corner inside. And Isaac Newton is really buried there. I saw his tomb. And Issac Newton really existed.

The point is, there are enough other scams & frauds in the world to debunk (JVP, John Edward, Uri Gellar, homeopothy, etc..) without worrying about a work of fiction (and an enjoyable one at that). You're making a tempest from a teapot.
 
I dunno, I find it easier to believe that Jesus was married, involved in an Egyptian mystery/love cult, staged his death, and moved to France, than I do the bit about him coming back from the dead.

That's just me though.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Da Vinci Code vs. The Church Code

The Central Scrutinizer said:
Yes, but it is presented as fact. If you go into the bookstore, you'll find TDC filed under "Fiction"
Click to expand...

Yeah, your probably right. I did a google and went to the author's home page. He seems to lay out the fact from the fiction. It is here:

http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html



I'm not familiar with that show, but if this DuBois person claims to be a psychic, and the show is about this DuBois person, and this DuBois person is real, then it is based on a true story. It is fact. Whether his(her?) "psychic powers" are real is doubtful. [/B]
Click to expand...


Well, it is sort of like claiming that Edwards is fact. The NBC news show did intentially give the impression this person had verified psycic powers. She did claim she saw dead people entering the studio.

NBC hypes it as "inspired by the real-life story of research medium Allison Dubois". "Real life" and "research medium" seem to be pushing the envelope a bit for me.

http://www.nbc.com/Medium/about/

Good show by the way - but I would have preferred they didn't try to pitch it as real life.

Mrick
 
I like Sylvia Browne on Montel. Montel thinks it's real, the audience thinks it's real, and sylvia playes them like a violin.

Kind of sad tho when You see some poor soul in anguish wishing to talk to their dead spouse or parent ..
 
>Mrick
>
>Yeah, your probably right. I did a google and went to the author's >home page. He seems to lay out the fact from the fiction. It is here:

Ahhh... good, you did a google. The problem is, you are actually smart enough to do that. The Target Audience of organizations like JREF and CSICOP, are those people who do NOT google to verfify info.

While Dan Brown makes a decent effort to clarify things on his web page, he's still ambiguous about what "secret rituals" exist. He states that all the artifacts and architecture exist... NO KIDDING... what he doesn't clarify is that his "research" on the "secret messges" in these artifacts and buildings includes some crack-pot theories. I don't blame him too much, he wants to sell books. He says he wanted to create discussion on History, Philosophie and Religion... unfortunately it has created the wrong type of discussion. The public seems to only want to discuss the most fantastic and most easily disproved theories. Of course they do not know that, because they never pick up a book to verify what the real facts are, they don't use Google or snopes.com. They believe Leonard Nimoy on "In search of", and Heraldo Rivera, and other sensationalized TV shows. These are the same people who believe in psychic surgery and paranormal powers. Dan Brown's job is to sell books, and he's doing it. Our job is to try to get people to think rationally about things, are we doing it?
 
Just a bit more...

Some think this may be a small battle... but I see it as a good way to smoke out the target into the sights of JREF memebers. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are NOT seperating the fact from the fiction in this book, despite the fact that it is sold as fiction. These are the exact people we want to wake up to reality. These people are exactly the large percentage discussed by Carl Sagan in "The Demon-Haunted World" as being "scientifically illiterate".

I agree with Mrick... I like fantastical fiction... as FICTION. I dislike it when TV Networks or Publishers allow, or even perpetuate, the impression that this stuff is true. I understand it is a business for them, but WE need to show the public and the media that REAL science and history are just as interesting. By writing this off as small potatoes I think we are missing an opportunity to talk directly to the people we want to create discussion with. By letting the media perpetuate fantasy as more real than reality, we are the ones failing... That's why I am hoping a credible source would take the time to stand up and correct some of the false impressions created by this book... I don't count religious fanatics as credible sources either.

PS to Phrost- yes, I agree with you, just about anything is easier to believe than a man coming back from the dead. It's easier to believe that a man was born with 4 arms... but that doesn't make it true. Don't you think the whole thing about Jesus in a mystery/love cult, staging his own death, moving to France and starting the blood line of the French Kings is a bit fantastical too? and is there any really Good evidence for it? One of my points is that we should not let one bizarre theory take the place of another, just because it is slightly more plausible.
 
Randi has said in the past that he won't challenge religious beliefs because they are based on faith and generally not testable. So I doubt the JREF (the actual Foundation, not this board) would attempt to challenge Brown's book which takes issue with aspects of people's faith.

Let's face it, that's why most people have a problem with Brown's book. He took other people's more academic argument that challenged the religious folk's view of the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene and made a popularized fiction about it. I doubt anyone really cares about the artistic liberty he took with some of the more minute details.

Ultimately, we can't know what the relationship was between Jesus and Mary Magdalene (if, indeed, either actually existed) because our documentation from that time is either incomplete or has been modified over the centuries. 1) I don't see promoting one view point over another as "debunking". 2) I don't see any way to definitively test the main thesis of the book, so why bother?
 
Upchurch,

You are right, I think I should not have used "debunking", it is a bit harsh. I guess I am mainly frustrated with people telling me how wonderfully accurate this book is and who really believe the obviously fictional aspects.

I also don't agree with the other camp of deeply religous people are shouting that the bible is completely factual and the catholic church has put forth the only accurate interpretation of Jesus' life.

Real history seems forgotten between these two. History may well have been written by the victors... but now history is being written by those with the best publicists.

Thanks for the feedback.
 
The History Channel had a fairly good discussion on the book. Pointed out some of the factual errors, etc. The final verdict was that the further back in time, the more reasonable the book's claims were. Meaning, the less evidence available to contradict it, the more believable his story is. ;)

Seems like the information is out there, not sure how you could push it harder.
 
The Da Vinci Code and the Bible are both works of fiction.


You want me to choice sides?
 
AWPrime said:
The Da Vinci Code and the Bible are both works of fiction.

You want me to choice sides?
Click to expand...

No I don't, that's exactly the problem... I want people to see the real truth, the real history, without one slant or the other. But people are either deeply rooted in their faith in what they "know" is correct, or they prefer to live in the fantasy world of some novel. I want the public to see a third option in all of this... the Truth. But, I guess it's just a pipe-dream.
 
Most of the content of The DaVinci Code has been debunked already. The Fortean Times, for instance, takes it apart in the current issue

Brown's ideas are hardly original and have already appeared in books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail which, in themselves sparked a fair industry in the 1980's and have been taken apart comprehensively since then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom