"The Da Vinci Code" and Roman Catholicism

[Jasminia]

Gravity is quite proven. The fact that we aren't all floating aimlessly around is a pretty good indication.

Is it? Not to throw this conversation into a huge tangent, but it's called the Theory of Gravity, not the Law of Gravity. The nature of gravity is still being investigated by organizations such as NASA, Stanford, and UCSB, just to name a few. Like all concepts not yet called natural laws, there is still room for error, elaboration, and reconsideration.

 

Dan Brown's novel is operating under several unprovable assumptions. His theory requires the historical Jesus story to be absolutely true as told in the gospels, requires the unsubstantiated stories regarding the Knights Templar to be true, etc., then twists these stories to relay his own theory.

Very interesting. You're suggesting that Brown's theories can be wrong because the gospels may have inaccurately portrayed the historical Jesus. In that case, if the gospels are wrong, and we don't have access to what may be true or false, wouldn't it stand to reason that any theory could possibly be correct? Further, if they got the historical Jesus wrong, then it would beg one to ask what else they got wrong. That's a very dangerous argument you made.

 

But remember what theory means. It relies on conjecture, propositions, and plain old guesses.

 

There is opposition to the book in the church because they fear the growing power of satan incarnate in the form of Dan Brown as he seeks to destroy mankind in a ball of all consuming fire.

That's an interesting theory.

[Primus Pilus]

Gravity is quite proven. The fact that we aren't all floating aimlessly around is a pretty good indication.

Is it? Not to throw this conversation into a huge tangent, but it's called the Theory of Gravity, not the Law of Gravity. The nature of gravity is still being investigated by organizations such as NASA, Stanford, and UCSB, just to name a few. Like all concepts not yet called natural laws, there is still room for error, elaboration, and reconsideration.

 

But you are suggesting that the theory of gravity is as unprovable as religion. We're talking apples and oranges in my opinion.

 

Dan Brown's novel is operating under several unprovable assumptions. His theory requires the historical Jesus story to be absolutely true as told in the gospels, requires the unsubstantiated stories regarding the Knights Templar to be true, etc., then twists these stories to relay his own theory.

Very interesting. You're suggesting that Brown's theories can be wrong because the gospels may have inaccurately portrayed the historical Jesus. In that case, if the gospels are wrong, and we don't have access to what may be true or false, wouldn't it stand to reason that any theory could possibly be correct? Further, if they got the historical Jesus wrong, then it would beg one to ask what else they got wrong. That's a very dangerous argument you made.

 

No, I'm suggesting that his theory is dependent upon the accuracy of other theories. Essentially, he's taken an unproven theory and twisted it into his own unproven theory. And umm, what's dangerous about it? Will satan crush me like a grape?

 

There is opposition to the book in the church because they fear the growing power of satan incarnate in the form of Dan Brown as he seeks to destroy mankind in a ball of all consuming fire.

That's an interesting theory.

 

Its not a theory, its a joke.

 

(PS, my comment about being crushed like a grape by satan is also a joke... in fact my participation in this thread should be largely regarded as someone who finds it funny how much attention 'The DaVinci Code' has received. With that in mind, take every comment I make with a proverbial grain of salt.)

[Ginevra]

I read the Da Vinci Code. Nice. But everything I can say is that Dan Brown cannot write...