News-Record.com

These people are acting like male apes that are having their dominance of the troop threatened. They go into a mode of all-out attack. Obviously, they see this as a threat to their membership numbers. Not only the Catholic Church, but all Christian denominations are seeing this as a threat.

What gets me is how much money appears to be available to be made by "debunkers" of this novel. It's funny and sad at the same time. Makes me wonder about people in general...

Eric:

I know there are many books that debunk the DaVinci Code. That's because it is easy to debunk.

Do you have sales and profit figures for these books debunking Dan Brown's book? Maybe they are losing money in publishing these books. Maybe they are merely breaking even. Maybe they are making money, but are putting it back in their ministries. Maybe your unsubstantiated assertions are funny and sad at the same time. Maybe you need another hobby other than attacking religion. Makes me wonder...

ecuman,
greetings my friend...you know as well as i do that eric knows enough about religion/Christianity to be dangerous but not enough to be good. he has demonstrated repeatedly his ignorance and lack of spiritual understanding of scriptures and he fits this definition....." But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned." he attacks religion because he is spiritually bankrupt and apparently does not have anything better to fill his lonely hours. he does much better on other subjects where he actually seems well versed, he ought to focus on those issues and try to be constructive with his knowledge.
i trust all is well with you and yours...grace and peace....

"Do you have sales and profit figures for these books debunking Dan Brown's book? Maybe they are losing money in publishing these books."

Not very likely. No publisher will take a risk on a new book that is a high risk. If the first few books that came out had bombed, there wouldn't have been any to follow.

"Maybe they are merely breaking even. Maybe they are making money, but are putting it back in their ministries."

Both scenarios are very possible.

"Maybe you need another hobby other than attacking religion."

Why should you be upset if I laugh at religion? As Mark Twain once said: "The altar cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next." -- I'm just a little ahead of my time. {;-)

" he attacks religion because he is spiritually bankrupt and apparently does not have anything better to fill his lonely hours."

Yeah, that's right... I only hold down a full-time job, write novels, go SCUBA diving with my son, attend church with my wife, help keep the Piedmont Freethought Association running. I'm just bored to tears without you guys to provide a few laughs.

Welcome back, sirs!

Eric:

Most of the authors of these books I have heard interviewed merely want to educate Christians and others of the lies in the DaVinci Code. Most of them have also written dozens of other books on various subjects within Christianity.

Very few books written by Christian authors have mass appeal and make huge piles of money. The exceptions are such books as The Purpose Driven Life and The Prayer of Jabez.

Do you go to church to laugh at religion? I laugh at the ideas of "free thinkers" that have closed minds. Or does the term "free thinker" refer to the value of most of the thoughts? Just wondering about the meaning of the label.

"Do you go to church to laugh at religion?"

I go to church with my wife. I have several friends at church, all of which I respect and whose company I enjoy. They all know I'm an atheist, and they are cool about it. I've also had a long friendship with the pastor at this church, and we enjoy discussing matters religious nd philosophical. He's one of my very closest friends, and I treasure all that he brings to our relationship.

"I laugh at the ideas of "free thinkers" that have closed minds. Or does the term "free thinker" refer to the value of most of the thoughts?"

Free thought means that nothing is beyond questioning. For instance,I question the existence of God, and so far, I've found the arguments supporting the idea unacceptable. The fact that you accept and believe in God is no real matter to me. I consider such decisions none of my business, and I do not look down on anyone who thinks differently from me.

I expect this seems to be a contradiction in my character. I have often stated: I laugh at religion, not the religious. The problems I have with folks are purely (so far as I can recall) based on personality conflicts.

"Just wondering about the meaning of the label."

I don't claim to be perfect; I just try to do my best and learn from my mistakes.

"Very few books written by Christian authors have mass appeal and make huge piles of money."

There's a difference between turning a profit and making huge piles of cash. But taken as a genre, I think the anti-Da Vinci market appears pretty lucrative to publishers. At least for the nonce.

" I only hold down a full-time job, write novels, go SCUBA diving with my son, attend church with my wife, help keep the Piedmont Freethought Association running. "...............
all of which must bring some sense of accomplishment and satisfaction...if only you would focus the energy that you use to try to dethrone God in the other fields of your interests, you'd be more productive imo.
btw eric your venture into a recent blog about tithing proves unequivocally that you have no first hand knowledge of scriptural teachings....what you have is your opinion but that is not the same a knowledge garnered from serious study. i realize you will counter with everything i study in the bible comes down to my interpretation thus it is just my opinion....of course i'll disagree with that overall...but would agree there are parts of scripture that are difficult to understand and some even appear to be antinomy and thus become subject to intepretation, but imo those instances are small in compariosn to the easily understood truths of scripture.

Eric:

If someone's believe in God "is no real matter to me", why do you spend so much time on blogs and writing letters to the editor trying to refute that belief?

As for the "anti-DaVinci market", how do you know that it is "lucrative"? You offer no data to support this assertion.

As for the existence of God, how do you explain why things exist rather than nothing? The universe is not eternal (as shown from scientific knowledge today), and the universe could not have created itself.

"If someone's believe in God "is no real matter to me", why do you spend so much time on blogs and writing letters to the editor trying to refute that belief?"

Dude, I'm just here expressing my opinion, same as you. I'm not consciously trying to proseltyze. I don't recall ever asking anyone here to leave their religion. If I have, I assure you I wouldn't do that now.

"As for the "anti-DaVinci market", how do you know that it is "lucrative"? You offer no data to support this assertion."

It's just an educated guess. I've been mucking about the publishing industry for years, trying to get my foot in the door. You learn a few basic principles of how the business works, if you hang around with those folks enough.

"As for the existence of God, how do you explain why things exist rather than nothing? The universe is not eternal (as shown from scientific knowledge today), and the universe could not have created itself."

I'm currently ignorant on the matter. But I think it's sort of strange to say "God did it" when you have no idea why God should exist instead of nothing, nor how God might have come into existence to begin with... which are even bigger questions than yours.

That's just my opinion, mon. No pressure from me to use Occam's Razor the way I do. {;-)

"But I think it's sort of strange to say "God did it" when you have no idea why God should exist instead of nothing, nor how God might have come into existence to begin with.".....................
just as you proposed an educated guess........
FAITH replaces an educated guess and is something you somehow no to be true, without any evidence.......sort of like your educated guess, you have no evidence but somehow you believe what you state !

Eric:

I am NOT claiming that everything has to have a cause or that NOTHING can be eternal.

I am saying that the universe cannot be eternal based on Big Bang cosmology and the second law of thermodynamics. Also, if the universe has come from a series of historical and physical events, then it is cannot be infinite since you cannot have an infinite count of events (you can't count to infinity). To summarize, the universe is not the kind of thing that is eternal and therefore, must have had a beginning.

Everything that HAS A BEGINNING has a cause. I know of only two types of causes, event causation (a prior event) or agent causation (someone decides).

Since the universe cannot have been caused by an infinite number of events, agent causation is the only other plausible explanation. I think that there has to be an agent that is eternal (did not have a beginning) and is therefore uncaused, immaterial (not physical), and outside of space, time and matter (hence immaterial).

Does that sound superstitious to you or does it sound like a reasonable amount of thought has gone into reaching that conclusion by myself as well as others?

Eric, please think about this. You are obviously an intelligent man. Please don't just default to ignorance on this question of the origin of the universe. If I'm right, the stakes could be too high. Thanks for listening (or reading in this case).

"I know of only two types of causes, event causation (a prior event) or agent causation (someone decides)."

What makes you think these two types of causes are materially different? I think if you analyze the situation, they boil down to the same thing.

"Does that sound superstitious to you or does it sound like a reasonable amount of thought has gone into reaching that conclusion by myself as well as others?"

Why should my opinion of your reasoning matter to you? I find other arguments regarding God's existence less than convincing for reasons that are covered elsewhere. Have you ever read "Why I am not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell?

"Eric, please think about this. You are obviously an intelligent man."

Flattery will get you nowhere with me.

"Please don't just default to ignorance on this question of the origin of the universe. If I'm right, the stakes could be too high."

OK... first off, why is it that you were trying to bash me for proseltyzing here, but it's OK for you? Second, we've been round on this Pascal's Wager bit before, IIRC. Finally, I fail to see why admitting ignorance is a bad thing.

Take it easy, mon.

Eric:

First of all, I am commanded to proseltyze. I'm not sure what your reasons are.

I know who Bertrand Russell is, but I have not read his book(s). Maybe I'll get around to it one day. What does he say that I would find interesting or compelling? Have you ever read "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek?

I didn't say admitting ignorance was bad. Using it as an excuse CAN be. You don't know how we got here (in terms of the very beginning), but you know that it wasn't God.

Are you saying if I decide to do something, say mow my lawn, the cause is physical? I would agree that the result may be physical, but not the cause.

"First of all, I am commanded to proseltyze."

So you have an excuse to be rude. How nice for you. I merely express my opinion simply because I want to, and I try most of the time to avoid being rude. Interesting contrast, don't you think?

"I know who Bertrand Russell is, but I have not read his book(s). Maybe I'll get around to it one day. What does he say that I would find interesting or compelling?"

Here's a link to the lecture:

http://www.users.drew.edu/%7Ejlenz/whynot.html

It's interesting because it gives a good philosophical explanation of why the "first cause" argument doesn't hold water.

"Have you ever read "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek?"

Yes, I have. I'm amazed at the ignorance displayed by these people, and by their contemporary Lee Strobel and their predecessor C.S. Lewis, regarding what atheism actually entails. I know many Christians who claim that others who claim the title aren't "true Christians." I firmly believe, based on the writings of many "former atheists" that few if any were ever atheists of the sort I know. I might group atheists into classes of "educated" and "ignorant," but that might put some folks off. I'll have to continue thinking on this one...

"Are you saying if I decide to do something, say mow my lawn, the cause is physical? I would agree that the result may be physical, but not the cause."

The cause is physical as well. You are part of the physical universe, are you not?

Eric:

I don't have much time for this today. So I will limit myself to one area.

Are you saying that everything is physical?

Take your time, sir. I'm here all week, more or less. {;-)

In regards to your question, yes, I'm a materialist. I expect that's no surprise...

Eric:

The statement that you made,"Yes, I'm a materialist.", how much it it weigh? How long is it? What are it's chemical properties?

ECU-dude,

Information is the arrangement of material items into patterns that we commonly accept as holding meaning. I press a key, and my computer places a pattern of pixels on my screen that correspond to the symbol on the key I press. There's nothing mystical about the process, and it is perfectly understandable in terms of the interaction of things that exist in the "material" world. Sure, the letter "Q" doesn't have mass, but there it is, a series of pixels on your screen, carried to you over a material network for your enjoyment.

Similarly, all of our language, all of our thoughts, everything that makes us sentient, can be boiled down to the arrangement of molecules in the cells of our brains. It stands to reason that when the brain stops functioning, the very existence of my mind will end.

Others believe differently, true. But most of the reasons they have for those beliefs are contradicted by scientific evidence. It's a right that I think we all agree must be honored, but that doesn't make any difference to reality, does it?

Eric:

Why should your molecules carry any more weight than my molecules? Why do you criticize other people who just have different molecules at work, including those who might want to murder you or rape your wife or mine for that matter?

My, but we have wandered far indeed from the original question!

"Why should your molecules carry any more weight than my molecules?"

Erm... Other than the fact that I feel it might be safe to assume I have more of them to my name than you (me being overweight and slightly above average height to boot; but I am currently losing some weight, happily), I don't see why they should. Equality is something I value.

"Why do you criticize other people who just have different molecules at work, including those who might want to murder you or rape your wife or mine for that matter?"

Can I assume you're going this direction as a way to get at an argument from the view of "moral law"? Russell addresses this as well in his essay. Or you could go with the "enlightened self-interest" of John Stuart Mill, as I do. Whatever.

Eric:

Can't you ever answer a question yourself? I read too, but I don't have the time to read everything. We could each refer each other to books and authors and philosophers until Jesus returns (I thought I would just throw that in!), but I would rather have a dialougue one-on-one.

You can say "This subject has been answered by John Atheist in his book..." and I can say "Those points have been refuted in Jack Christian's book...". What's the point?

If you don't have time to read an essay, you really don't have time to bicker over points of philosophy like "moral laws" and "first cause" -- that's my guess.

Shall we just leave the conversation at that and go look over other threads? Take it easy, sir.

Eric:

I just prefer to do most of my own thinking and respond freehand, but we'll have to agree to disagree. Have a good day.

The Da Vinci Code really is symptomatic of the times, and hence the furor it causes. Those who have trouble separating fiction from reality in other ways are bound to get in a tizzy over this novels premises.

In a small disclaimer at the beginning of the novel, Brown says the art historical facts are accurate (but he makes several glaring errors about media and Leonardo's alleged sex life)...but he never says the whole religious conspiracy stuff is supposed to be 100% "gospel". He does state the Opus Dei group is real. As to the reality of their motives and tactics, I think he leaves that open to his poetic license. It's all rather crafty.

Oh, and recent astrophysical discoveries are getting teasingly close to the very nanoseconds of the start of the universe. That, too, remains an open question. Even if certain deep structural questions are convincingly addressed with field-theory explanations (they would have to be devoid of only materialist physics...unless some form of dark matter has always existed), any "answer" that might gain acceptance scientifically would be unlikely to assuage the vast majority of people's yearning for supernatural meaning. Man does not survive on bread alone. Our very genetic makeup may require us to believe in something.

"...any "answer" that might gain acceptance scientifically would be unlikely to assuage the vast majority of people's yearning for supernatural meaning."

No one has ever said that a complete theory of the universe would be "satisfying" to the human desires for meaning and parental protection.

"Man does not survive on bread alone. Our very genetic makeup may require us to believe in something."

Our genetic heritage is one that tends to favor the development of a religious mindset, but that cast of mind isn't "inevitable." The fact is that I'm extremely happy to have found my way out of that unpleasant (to me, at least) world.

Agreed, the validity of a scientific hypothesis or theory does not hinge on acceptance by the population at large. Witness the confusions (my own included) over quantum mechanics. My point is not that such lack of acceptance dismisses scientific ideas; I meant to highlight popular understanding's sheer improbability... nay, I suspect only utter futility in hoping even the most rigorously defended astrophysics would unseat mass hypnosis.

By the by, Eric, how have you found a "way out"? As far I can can glean, you seem to agree with me we're all worm-food. There's no "out", unless ignoble destruction counts. "Huis Clos".

"By the by, Eric, how have you found a "way out"? As far I can can glean, you seem to agree with me we're all worm-food."

I was referring to the unpleasant world of my religious convictions. The world in general has beauties and wonders that I'll never be able to exhaust before I become worm-food (well... strictly speaking my body's fate will be quite useful. It'll be a cadaver for medical students to play with), so I'm pretty cool with it for the most part.