The Da Vinci code

[inked]

Offend anyone? Nahhh!

On a serious note for those interested in the relation of TDC to history, I commend this review and the actual text mentioned if you care for history and Christianity or Christ:

http://www.eppc.org/news/newsID.1622/news_detail.asp

Now, for Elfhelm!

I commend to your perusal THE VICTORY OF REASON: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success by Rodney Stark, University Professor of the Social Sciences, Baylor University. His PhD is from the University of California, Berkeley. I think you will find it helpful in this regard. The introduction alone is an education in how Christianity laid the basis for western advancement and was its chief resource and architect.

Marx, whose suffragettes you mention (meaning I am sure the American version and not the literal sufferers of his in Communist Russia), is mentioned within the first page as extolling the virtue of capitalism over the indolence of humanity prior to that point. My point is that the status of women considered as economic entities, which is your point, was allowed and enabled and enfranchised to accomplishment by the same. Let me know what you think of the idea.

You have a lot of confusions. Hence, to pique your interest and to challenge the common view, I will type out a pertinent excerpt:

"During the past century, Western intellectuals have been more than willing to trace European imperialism to Christian origins, but they have been entirely unwilling to recognize that Christianity made any contribution (other than intolerance) to the Western capacity to dominate. Rather, the West is said to have surged ahead precisely as it overcame religious barriers to progress, especially those impeding science. Nonsense. The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians. (xi) ...

...freedom was also essential... .

To sum up: the rise of the West was based on four primary victories of reason. The first was the development of faith in progress within Christian theology. The second victory was the way that faith in progress translated into technical and organizational innovations, many of them fostered by monastic estates. The third was that, thanks to Christian theology, reason informed both political philosophy and practice to the degree that responsive states, sustaining a substantial degreee of personal freedom, appeared in medieval Europe. The final victory involved the application of reason to commerce, resulting in the development of capitalism within the safe havens provided by the responsive states. These were the victories by which the West won. (xiii)"

Interested?

I would, contra Elfhelm, assert that parallel progression is in fact a causative relationship economically and socially. Women were elevated in direct parallel to these economic events. And for support, I would turn to a feminist history of chess: THE BIRTH OF THE CHESS QUEEN: A History by Marilyn Yalom. To quote the flyleaf intro: "In a lively and engaging narrative, Yalom draws parallels between the birth of the chess queen and the ascent of female sovereigns n Europe... . Further, she shows the connection between the chess queen, the cult of the Virgin Mary, and the cult of Romantic Love, all of which influenced European societies for centuries to come." Marilyn Yalom is a senior scholar at the Institute for Women and Gender at Stanford University.

Now, Elfhelm, please do not take me to say that either of these scholars would endorse my points precisely as I make them. I merely point out that far from being the beknighted source of all oppression as commonly falsely assumed and asserted, Christianity is the agent which allowed these changes to occur in society and science. And it is evident in so apparently innocuous a pasttime as chess (which, by the by, was forbidden by Islam and Christianity at various times in both's histories).

But, read, think, and let me know your take.

[Elfhelm]

During the past century, Western intellectuals have been more than willing to trace European imperialism to Christian origins, but they have been entirely unwilling to recognize that Christianity made any contribution (other than intolerance) to the Western capacity to dominate. Rather, the West is said to have surged ahead precisely as it overcame religious barriers to progress, especially those impeding science. Nonsense. The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians.

We begin by characterizing our opponent as intellectuals. This is important because everyone feels in their gut that a person must be more than intellectual. A person must be whole to be trusted. An intellectual is all ontellect, no feeling, not trustworthy. Now that our well is poisoned, let us proceed to speak on behalf of our mischaracterized opponent. More than willing means something, doesn't it? They must be motivated by more than their own will. They have a hidden agenda. So now we have intellectuals more than willing to say something. And what is it they say? Let us again speak for them. They say European Imperialism has its roots in Christianity. Quick, now, because it is so obviously false. Quick before anyone points out that nearly every historian to a person says that imperialism, the urge to create empire, was practiced by many pre-Christian cultures. Quick, because we just told a big fat lie. We have to pounce now and speak again for our imaginary adversary. He is entirely unwilling, entirely unwilling to recognize that Christianity made any, any, ANY contribution, to what? To what indeed. To the western capacity to dominate. Careful now. I think the reader blinked. I think the reader is trying to figure out the phrase. Christianity's contribution to the western capacity to dominate. I don't even think WE know what we're saying. But hurry, create the counterpoint. All this doubletalk was there to make a counterpoint. Any sane person would disagree with any that preceded it, at least that much of it that is comprehensible, so raise the counterpoint, the actual, true statement that can be attributed to one of them. That the west surged ahead when science was freed from the restraints of religious barriers. Yes, there are many who say this. But we have an argument. Let's see, which dazzling disproof shall we raise? Let's, I know, let's just state the opposite as firmly as possible and put a period on it. First, though, a one word dismissal. Nonsense. Everything before the actual quote was nonsense, nobody will argue that. Perhaps they'll throw out the baby with the bathwater, because you know, they all secretly despise intellectuals. Those simpering little twits who got A's in school. That's right. Say the thing that will upset the twits and send them stammering into the night. Say that the rise of science rests entirely on religious foundations. Nevermind that the very nature of religion is to enforce dogma. Don't let them think that. And the very nature of science is debated and theory. Bow your head, look solemn, and demand that the true scientist is devout. Then pass the collection plate. We have the masses on our side. Light the incense and open your hymnals, please!

[Elfhelm]

p.s. I know the second paragraph has the four salient points. I'll get back to that, I promise.

[Elfhelm]

For what it is worth, I don't deny that most western philosophers were theists. I, too, am a theist. But how many of them would agree that the only reason they can get into heaven is because a moralist from the Roman era in Palestine was crucified? Because that's the difference between a generic theist and a Christian.

I don't see what this has to do with anything here, or that is it an argument against anything I have said.

The Birth of the Chess Queen does seem like useful material an argument against women's oppression by the men of the cloth, which is a topic in the fictional novel DaVinci Code, and that is the topic, so it does merit reply.

But I'm only replying to the other comments out of respect. They're totally off topic. They belong in some sort of science vs church thread. (Which, if you start it, they'll merge it with theology.)

[inked]

Consilience, Elfhelm, consilience........

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by inked

I would, contra Elfhelm, assert that parallel progression is in fact a causative relationship economically and socially. Women were elevated in direct parallel to these economic events.

OK, this is the consilience you refer to.

Personally, I think drawing causative relations between unrelated events based entirely on their chronological coincidence is jumping to conclusions. And belief in premature conclusions is superstition. Even if it later turns out to be true, it was arrived at by accident. My friends insist that they have insights that allow them to leap over the logical steps necessary to prove causation. Since they are my friends, I don't give them a hard time about it. But inside my own cranium, in my own little skeptical universe, I remain unconvinced. When they are in the mood for mental jousting, though, I cheerfully mount my mental destrier.

the rise of the West was based on four primary victories of reason. The first was the development of faith in progress within Christian theology. The second victory was the way that faith in progress translated into technical and organizational innovations, many of them fostered by monastic estates. The third was that, thanks to Christian theology, reason informed both political philosophy and practice to the degree that responsive states, sustaining a substantial degreee of personal freedom, appeared in medieval Europe. The final victory involved the application of reason to commerce, resulting in the development of capitalism within the safe havens provided by the responsive states. These were the victories by which the West won.

"Progress" is part of Christian theology? Which bookburning was an example of progressive thinking? Which Anabaptist massacre was an example of progress. Which forced redaction by an imprisoned scientist? I see no evidence supporting your assertion. In fact, the mountain of evidence in opposition to it is mindboggling. Again, what sort of revisionism is going on here, pretending that the Church had faith in progress?

And since that is your major premise, claiming that technical advancements were fostered in the monasteries, that reason in politics resulted in personal freedom in the medieval era, all resulting in commerce etc., is words written with no foundation.

But I will discuss the pre-Rennaisance. The printing press, first used to print the Bible. The communal societies of the Franciscans. The importation of middle eastern culture during the crusades. They were all important steps leading up to the Rennaisance. And Chrysostomas (I can't say for sure if I named the right guy), a priest, brought the Greek philosophers' works to Italy after the fall of the Byzantine Empire.

All these changes caused people to think that maybe something better was possible.

But it was reading the works of Plato and Aristotle that really put a fire under it all. The establishment of the Academy in Florence along the lines that Plato created in Ancient Greece.

That's right. Those darn PAGANS again!

Also, it can be shown that Byzantium fell because of arrogance and closed-mindedness, supported greatly by faith in arcane dogma.*

I am, obviously, of the opinion that the early advancement were made in spite of the resistance from the conservatives in power in the Church, not because of it. And I can easily find plenty of evidence.

But WOMEN did not get equality at this time. It was all about men getting free from the mental slavery of dogma. They wanted to be rich, and that meant creating capitalism. Any church involvement in that affair was how to fleece the capitalists. And the fact that many of these capitalists were humanists may have been solely based on their desire not to pay taxes to an organization that was only selling forgiveness for sins that they themselves were committing. So not believing in an afterlife became popular.

But I agree that many greats from Bacon through Kant were theists. I don't think that means the Church itself fostered progressive attitudes.

* = i.e., The Ottoman Turks may have had gunpowder and cannons, but the Byzantine Empire had God on its side. Which would you rather have? ((Of course, nowadays you can have both, as seen on TV.))

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

You mean the reference to one or two lucky women who happened to be allowed to have an opinion?

Perhaps you didn't read my reply? I quoted Aquinas differentiating between public and private speech. Gwai argued my quote. So, we didn't ignore you. We wouldn't. Ever.

Actually...*scratches head* I was referring to my history lesson on Constantine...which I THOUGHT was posted AFTER the Hildgarde post...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

But Elfhelm, there were more groups than just Essenes and Orthodox rabbis back then.

I don't know too much about carbon-dating, except that it isn't that trustworthy, IMO.

Here's a thing about the Gnostic gospels though: pay-attention to what they actually write about the contemporary times of Christ: do they mention the politics of the times? the customs? Or do they merely "rip-off" of what is learnable from the four canonical?

Also this, and an excellently made point in Sandra Miesel and Carl Olson's "The Da Vinci Hoax": the gnostic gospels actually have a more inhuman Jesus than is accused of the Canon Four! As I said somewhere else (and my thread got pasted somewhere else, and I havent been able to find it...), trading the Jesus of the four canonical for the gnostics is going to give you a weird bargain. You look for the human christ? He is in St Luke, St Mark, St Matthew, St John...at the same time is truly Christ God our Saviour.

I might as well say something about the First Council of Nicea, which Brown claims redefined Jesus from simply man to a god.

Arius (and even he didn't dispute Christ's divinity!) was a priest with a lot of influence. It so happened that Constantine's mother and sister were big supporters of Arius, so Constantine was kindof caught in a crossfire...

This is what Arius argued about Christ's divinity: That he was a seperate bieng from God, created. A demi-god. Half Orange, Half Blue, mixed up. But he was still divine.

The other side argued that that if that was the case, Christ would not have authority to save our souls. They believed that he was both FULLY God and FULLY Man. He was an Orange Ball, AND a Blue Ball, not a mix. Because both are possible with God.

As for Constantine's order of "New Bibles", it was nothing more malevolant than getting some into circulation. After all, the printing press was not invented then, and it's not like Christians handed out cartoon tracks, and atheists handed out pamphlets....(that's something Protestants won't understand about "Tradition", but that's another sotry).

Here it is.

[Bran]

The Colbert Report provided an analysis of how many monkeys it would take for various works. This was in response to comments made in the news on monkeys typing out the Bible or the Koran. According to Colbert, one million monkeys typing for eternity would produce Shakespere, ten thousand (drinking) monkeys typing for ten thousand years would produce Hemingway, and ten monkeys typing for three days would produce Dan Brown.

I don't really have time to discuss Dan Brown with any of you right now, but I wanted to share this quote with you, as it shows some of my feelings on the subject, and, it's damned funny.

I'm enjoying reading this thread, though, and hope to join soon.

[shesabrandybuck]

Just started reading this for a second time. I get so into it, it all seems like it could be real. I eventually snap out of it.