Origins

[Udayana]

caveat emptor ?

[Maeght]

You people have a very high opinion of yourselves ...

The phrase including the words Pot, Kettle and Black comes to mind.

[Nearly Sane]

caveat emptor ?

I've never bought an empty cave!!

[jeremyp]

I agree with you, Trent. Good luck to Dan Brown for cashing in and capturing the imagination of some gullible people for a while - but he's not a 'good writer'. However there's nothing wrong in being a successful popular writer.
What Dicky said on previous page is spot on.

Not everybody who reads Dan Brown is gullible. My brother has read most of his books and he well aware that it's what is known in the trade as "fiction". I've only read the Da Vinci Code and I was well aware that it was fiction before I started.

His books are entertaining nonsense. That doesn't make you gullible any more than watching I'm a Celebrity makes you gullible.

[jeremyp]

You people have a very high opinion of yourselves but I have to point out that this is not a discussion about literary matters.  Which author is better and writes on which subject is entirely irrelevant.

This is the Religions & Ethics board and every day we discuss religion and science. We discuss atheism and its merits or demerits. We discuss Christianity, Jesus, the Church, the Pope and the validity of Christian beliefs.

The genre that Dan Brown writes about are precisely about these matters and that is why this thread has been started on this forum.   It is not a general discussion of Dan Brown's or anyone else's writing skills  or about books on other subjects.

No one seems to have read the 'Origins'. Fine. But if anyone does, they will find lots of stuff connected to Christian beliefs, Atheism, future of technology, AI and so on.   This thread is meant to initiate a discussion on these matters regardless of whether you agree with him or not and whether you like his style or not.

But there seems to have been a cop-out...with lots of bluster and pomposity instead.

Typical!

You do understand that Dan Brown writes fiction, don't you?

[jeremyp]

except the Holy Blodd and the Holy Grail isn't sold as speculative fiction

Interesting you should say that. Baigent and Leigh sued Dan Brown over the Da Vinci Code claiming he stole their plot. However, that wouldn't make any sense unless the "plot" of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail was fiction. If the plot is actually what really happened in history, you can't really claim intellectual property rights on it.

[Shaker]

Interesting you should say that. Baigent and Leigh sued Dan Brown over the Da Vinci Code claiming he stole their plot. However, that wouldn't make any sense unless the "plot" of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail was fiction. If the plot is actually what really happened in history, you can't really claim intellectual property rights on it.

I don't know the timeline off the top of my head but that of course may have been after the Priory of Sion was exposed as a hoax. Before that of course B, L & L were able to try to pass it off as history.

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting you should say that. Baigent and Leigh sued Dan Brown over the Da Vinci Code claiming he stole their plot. However, that wouldn't make any sense unless the "plot" of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail was fiction. If the plot is actually what really happened in history, you can't really claim intellectual property rights on it.

Indeed.
Worth reading what it says here about the case. And also note that The Woman with the Alabaster Jar was published in 1993 and didn't give rise to any case.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lincoln

[jeremyp]

I don't know the timeline off the top of my head but that of course may have been after the Priory of Sion was exposed as a hoax. Before that of course B, L & L were able to try to pass it off as history.

True, but I think this represents the first occasion where they were effectively admitting that the HB&HS is fiction.

[Sriram]

You do understand that Dan Brown writes fiction, don't you?

Yes..I do. So what?

I still don't understand why such an issue is being made about the book being fiction. Everyone knows it is fiction.

Most of you believe that the Bible is fiction, for heavens sake!  So what? 

The reason the subject has been posted here is because the book is centered around religion and atheism and science. These are subjects that we discuss here everyday. That's all!   

[jeremyp]

Yes..I do. So what?

I still don't understand why such an issue is being made about the book being fiction. Everyone knows it is fiction.

So there is a good chance that what he writes is not true.

Most of you believe that the Bible is fiction, for heavens sake!  So what? 

It means we don't have to believe it when it says there are windows in the sky where the rain gets in.

[Sriram]

So there is a good chance that what he writes is not true.

What do you mean? We know that it is not true. There is no one called Langdon or Kirsch. We know that.   

The plot could be fiction but the ideological issues raised are still very relevant. The conflicts between religion and science are certainly relevant. The reactions and conclusions of people on either side are very relevant.

These are debates that are usually held only between scholars and so called intellectuals. But Dan Brown has succeeded in bringing them into the public, popular fold. That is a very good thing.

[wigginhall]

Do people still talk about the conflict between religion and science?  Gosh, how frightfully quaint.   

[Sriram]

Do people still talk about the conflict between religion and science?  Gosh, how frightfully quaint.

How long have you been on this forum?

[wigginhall]

How long have you been on this forum?

My lawyer told me not to answer questions like that.

[Walter]

How long have you been on this forum?

Sriram

you seem to be coming in for a lot of stick here so ill just say this ; if you enjoyed the book , good for you and you can take away from it what ever you like and sod the rest . No one is forcing them to read it .

btw , I enjoy Coronation Street , just so's ya know!

[Sriram]

Sriram

you seem to be coming in for a lot of stick here so ill just say this ; if you enjoyed the book , good for you and you can take away from it what ever you like and sod the rest . No one is forcing them to read it .

btw , I enjoy Coronation Street , just so's ya know!

 

Wondering where you were actually!!

[wigginhall]

How long have you been on this forum?

My lawyer has given way.   Do you think that many people actually reject scientific stuff in favour of religion?   I know there are people who for example refuse to take medicine or antibiotics, as they prefer to pray.  But in a country like the UK, I would say that is quite a minority.   There is also stuff such as creationism of the YEC kind, but again in the UK, this is quite a minority, but in the US quite a lot of people.   But do they also reject doctors and so on?  In other words, there are specific issues where there is disagreement (e.g. evolution), but is this really an overall conflict?

[Sriram]

My lawyer has given way.   Do you think that many people actually reject scientific stuff in favour of religion?   I know there are people who for example refuse to take medicine or antibiotics, as they prefer to pray.  But in a country like the UK, I would say that is quite a minority.   There is also stuff such as creationism of the YEC kind, but again in the UK, this is quite a minority, but in the US quite a lot of people.   But do they also reject doctors and so on?  In other words, there are specific issues where there is disagreement (e.g. evolution), but is this really an overall conflict?

No...It is not about these things. It is about more fundamental ideas of God and creationism.

Its about  ...'where we came from..and where we are going'.  That is what the book discusses from the view point of atheists and religious people (Christians basically). 

[wigginhall]

No...It is not about these things. It is about more fundamental ideas of God and creationism.

Its about  ...'where we came from..and where we are going'.  That is what the book discusses from the view point of atheists and religious people (Christians basically).

My impression has been that the notion of such a conflict has been discredited among historians and sociologists and others.   There haven't really been such black and white positions - for example, Darwin's stuff was welcomed by many Christians.   I don't have links to this at the moment, but will dig some up.

[Shaker]

No...It is not about these things. It is about more fundamental ideas of God and creationism.

Its about  ...'where we came from..and where we are going'.  That is what the book discusses from the view point of atheists and religious people (Christians basically).

What leads you to think that Brown in particular has anything interesting or original to say on these issues? His exposition of ideas comes across as though the sum total of his research was a dull Sunday afternoon on Wikipedia.

[Sriram]

My impression has been that the notion of such a conflict has been discredited among historians and sociologists and others.   There haven't really been such black and white positions - for example, Darwin's stuff was welcomed by many Christians.   I don't have links to this at the moment, but will dig some up.

I don't think anyone can speak for all Christians in the world regarding this matter.

I am sure there are many orthodox Christians even today who still take the bible literally. And there are many atheists who believe the future is in technology and AI.

In any case, if you are interested I suggest you read the book to see how  Dan Brown has dealt with this issue.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think anyone can speak for all Christians in the world regarding this matter.

I am sure there are many orthodox Christians even today who still take the bible literally. And there are many atheists who believe the future is in technology and AI.

In any case, if you are interested I suggest you read the book to see how  Dan Brown has dealt with this issue.

Why? What argument does he give?

[Sriram]

Why? What argument does he give?

Just read the book NS or skip it.  I am not going to give a synopsis here. 

[Dicky Underpants]

Yes..I do. So what?

I still don't understand why such an issue is being made about the book being fiction. Everyone knows it is fiction.

Most of you believe that the Bible is fiction, for heavens sake!  So what? 

The reason the subject has been posted here is because the book is centered around religion and atheism and science. These are subjects that we discuss here everyday. That's all!   

Probably most people do realise that it is fiction, but like you, many of them seem to think that the matters that Dan Brown raises are based on genuine historical and religious research. It is all very well stimulating the general public to take an interest in such matters by means of a piece of page-turning fiction, but when the intellectual basis for such tales is so shoddy, misleading, ill-informed and downright spurious, any potential didactic spin-off is likely to be irredeemably tainted from the start.

It is no coincidence that the genuine (and agnostic) biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman was so concerned over this aspect of Dan Brown's work that he felt the need to write Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code.
https://archive.org/details/BartEhrman-TruthAndFictionInTheDaVinciCode

Fair enough, if you want to recommend a few thrillers to while away the time on holiday (or during our British winter), then I'd welcome the suggestions. But you actually seem to think Dan Brown is a rigorous scholar of history, religion and science as well.