Author Dan Brown Discusses His Loss of Faith as a Child

_{Clive Hayden
September 28, 2009

Education, Evolution, Religion

1}_{Categories
Education
Evolution
Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Author Dan Brown is interviewed at Parade, and comments on his loss of faith as a kid:

I was raised Episcopalian, and I was very religious as a kid. Then, in eighth or ninth grade, I studied astronomy, cosmology, and the origins of the universe. I remember saying to a minister, “I don’t get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, but here it says God created heaven and Earth and the animals in seven days. Which is right?” Unfortunately, the response I got was, “Nice boys don’t ask that question.” A light went off, and I said, “The Bible doesn’t make sense. Science makes much more sense to me.” And I just gravitated away from religion.

It’s six days of creation in Genesis, not seven days. He should read Gerald Schroeder’s book The Science of God.

I’d like to ask our wonderful commenters to contribute other stories of notable people who have lost their faith as a result of materialistic/evolutionary presumptions in modern science.

Comments

vjtorley @ 24, I appreciate your comments (as always!). I had the impression that Prof. Hayes was actually flaunting her ignorance of Latin, leading her audience to suspect that she is not Christian, but probably Jewish. I Googled around a little, and discovered I was right! RickToews @ 30, you didn't listen to the lecture, did you? (I could tell...)Lutepisc_{September 29, 2009
September
09
Sep
29
29
2009
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Judge Hand. I really flubbed my reply above. I meant to say "went over" not "won't over." Of course, we go over your formula. My class covers philosophical issues in torts, crim law, law and morality, and the nature of law. And when we cover torts and their philosophical grounding we cover law and economics including the Hand Formula.fbeckwith_{September 29, 2009
September
09
Sep
29
29
2009
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

Clive and all, I only got interested in the ID controversy in about 2001. I couldn't understand why legacy media claimed it was dying when it obviously wasn't. (I wrote a book to try to explain that (By Design or by Chance?, 2004)) But while interviewing people for the book and otherwise discussing it, I was astonished to discover the number of people who had genuinely lost contact with their spiritual tradition on account of Darwinism. I began to see that it is the main way materialist atheism is fronted by tax-funded public institutions today. So if you are not a materialist atheist, you pay taxes to fund people who hate you. I had NOT expected to find this. When I talked to Christian notables, I often heard nonsense about Thomas Aquinas and how God could exist but be be completely undetectable by anybody [NOT what you hear in the Bible], and it is possible to explain all events without recourse to the idea that God could ever wish to communicate with anybody [NOT what you hear in the Bible] and ... well, I practically fell asleep listening to all this rot. The tax-funded food was great. The rot was NOT. At that time, I didn't care much one way or the other about the theories the theistic evolutionists fronted, except that they didn't address two fundamental problems that I did care about: 1) Loss of contact with spiritual traditions, due to the belief that one is a trousered ape 2) Loss of civil society in many places (= we are just trousered apes, so ... ). So the yob and the tart replace the gent and the schoolmarm. Personally, I would far rather deal with the gent and the schoolmarm than the yob and the tart. The gent and schoolmarm can be a colossal bore, I admit, but the yob and tart are truly dangerous - like animals with serious brains. Anyway, I have been on this story ever since. So that's my story. I had never thought about it much until stuff just did not add up.O'Leary_{September 29, 2009
September
09
Sep
29
29
2009
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand @10
Has Dan Brown ever seriously claimed that the plots of his fiction books are true?
Landru @15 (all hail Landru!) Answered your question. My own answer is the fact that Dan Brown... 1. Begins his Da Vinci Code with the word "Fact:" 2. Has his smart character blather on for over 100 pages out of the 400 to explain History of Christianity (and subsequently getting an F-- for basic facts). 3. Goes on circuit to promote his bizarre view of Christian history almost than he promotes his books.SpitfireIXA_{September 29, 2009
September
09
Sep
29
29
2009
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

Dr. Beckwith, Thanks! I'll be sure to get a copy. Out of curiosity, is there a reason other than scarcity of time that you don't cover the formula? It seems like one of the more applicable nuts-and-bolts legal principals to a philosophy of law class.Learned Hand_{September 29, 2009
September
09
Sep
29
29
2009
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

E.g. Richard Dawkins. See it here.Alex73_{September 29, 2009
September
09
Sep
29
29
2009
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

I hadn’t realized that this blog would trigger Francis Beckwith’s response! But now that he’s made it and it’s taken people off what struck me as its original purpose, here’s what I think. First, I’m not troubled by the Meyer quote that began Beckwith’s intervention. I don’t see anything incompatible about looking for a rational path to theism through ID and subjecting ID to the usual give-and-take of scientific criticism. In fact, this sort of thing routinely happens on this blog. Behe and Dembski are not given a free pass on their statements – they are subject to all sorts of scrutiny. These differences would be more public and actively pursued, if ID were institutionally more secure in the academy. My guess is that this will happen in the not too distant future, and that the exact meaning of this great enemy ‘materialism’ that needs to be vanquished will be subject to many interpretations that will result in healthy disagreement – as it has in the history of Protestantism. For what it’s worth, I happen to think the failures of the ID movement to date are more rhetorical than logico-empirical, at least when compared with what a pure Darwinist view has on offer. But ID’s rhetorical failures are not addressed by denying the significance of theism – especially of the Abrahamic variety – in fuelling the ID conceptual imagination. To be a bit provocative, that would be a bit like Black people trying to appear more ‘White’ in some effort to appease racist bigots, as was common in the first half of the last century. It’s unnecessary and it doesn’t work. ID’s great strength, as suggested in the Meyer quote, is that it makes its interest in integrating science and religion explicit. Why is this a strength? Because it admits that science and theology are both addressing the one reality that we – believers and unbelievers – all inhabit. Theology is not simply a discipline for and about believers. It is for and about everyone, just as science is. I realize that this may be a scary thought because it brings to mind the idea of theology as akin to medicine, with non-believers treated as if ill. But of course, in democratic societies, physicians allow the ill to identify themselves and seek treatment, even in the face of heavy-duty public health campaigns. So too with the theologians and ministers? So maybe the comparison is not so scary? As for the Neo-Thomists and other monotheists who shy away from ID because they’re afraid that it might unleash some irrationalist religious revival, I remain singularly unimpressed by the intellectual credibility of their alternative, which is basically some variant on the NOMA theme, in which theology is ghettoised into a realm of reality to which believers only have access and non-believers – or believers when they play scientist -- are free to avoid. Richard Dawkins and the other New Atheists are right to smirk at this alternative, which looks like it was cooked up in a backroom simply to keep the peace by pretending that there are just as many realities as are needed to keep everyone happy. By the way, not to be outdone by Beckwith in the product placement department, I would like to recommend the following, which will be out in the UK in November: http://www.amazon.com/Should-Christians-Embrace-Evolution-Scientific/dp/184474406X/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254219615&sr=8-7Steve Fuller_{September 29, 2009
September
09
Sep
29
29
2009
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT}

Folks, I asked for any other similar stories of notable people who lost their faith as a result of materialistic presuppositions of science, and, I reckon, we could add the philosophy of scientism. Anyone you may know of and want to share their story?Clive Hayden_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

PaulBurnett,
How can religious conferences convince anybody that ID is science? These conferences will only reinforce the stereotype that ID is religious in nature.
The conference is to show pastors that ID is not incompatible with religious sensibilities, the necessity of this need shows that ID isn't an outgrowth of religious sensibilities. It's quite the opposite from what you mistakenly claim.Clive Hayden_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT}

Genesis is not written as “straightforward history,” as we understand those words today.
Yes, and I heard Christine Hayes remark that it's unfortunate that the first 11 chapters in Genesis are regarded as history in the conventional sense, since the stories contained therein "owe a great deal to ancient Near Eastern mythology." And yet writers in the New Testament certainly referred to events in the early chapters of Genesis as though they had literally occurred. Hebrews 11 appears to assume the historicity of Abel, Enoch, and Noah, just as it does Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, etc. Jesus declares his generation guilty of the righteous blood shed, beginning with the blood of Abel--rather harsh if he didn't think the account of Cain and Abel was historically true. Jude refers to a prophecy made by Enoch, whom he identifies as "the seventh from Adam." And, of course, in Exodus, Moses records God's claim from Sinai of having created the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days, corroborating the Genesis 1 account. (Who's giving misinformation here? Moses? God? Some other writer(s) putting words into Moses's mouth?) One doesn't have to believe any of the text, of course; but it's not at all clear to me why one would allow a book to speak with authority regarding one's conduct, or imagine that it contains real answers to metaphysical questions, if a) the opening parts were based on myth and not expressive of actual history, and b) the later writers (purportedly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) had not the insight to realize this.RickToews_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

Dear Judge Hand: The St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy. On a side note, we just won't over your formula in my Philosophy of Law class! FJBfbeckwith_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

As unusual as my background is, it follows a pretty logical progression. I was raised Southern Baptist in a family that went to church service every Sunday, Sunday night and Wednesday, but faith was never discussed among family. I don't remember God being mentioned once. I remember my mom uttering the name of Jesus once, commenting on why it would be preferable to be Catholic than Jewish. By the time I was degreed in electrical engineering from Vanderbilt in '72 I was atheist because of the pretty ubiquitous hostility towards faith in the cultural milieu of that time and place, plus it was "pretty neat" not having to worry about the consequences of easy sex. The turnaround for me came about after years of personal confusion and especially after reading "Realms of The Human Unconscious" by Grof, although it was not until the second reading some years after the first. Consciousness research employing psychedelics and human subjects does absolutely not support materialism. This is obvious from almost any reading on the subject. The subjective accounts support this interpretation of results, and the empirical accounts of subjects kicking "intractable" addictions coupled with such subjects' philosophical and spiritual opening evidence the universality of non-material dimensions of existence.groovamos_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

Dr. Beckwith, Can you tell us which journal will be doing this special edition?Learned Hand_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

fbeckworth, you raise very good points in post 16.tribune7_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

“I don’t get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, but here it says God created heaven and Earth and the animals in seven days. Which is right?” But there is a lot of irony in Brown's statement. The paradigm for the secularists was once that of an eternal universe without beginning or end. It was a Catholic priest and WWI vet named Georges Lemaître who conceived of the "Big Bang" and his theory was strongly opposed by the secularists -- "In the beginning" and all that. In fact, the phrase "Big Bang" was coined by Sir Fred Hoyle, an atheist, at least at the time, and was meant to be derisivetribune7_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

Lutepisc (#17) Thank you for your link. I've just been having a look at the transcript of the lecture you recommended. For me, it brought back a lot of old memories of attending lectures in Religious Studies at Australian National University, way back in 1983. The lecture provides a useful antidote to the naive popular view of the garden-variety skeptic who sees in Genesis nothing more than a Babylonian folk tale. Professor Christine Hayes does an excellent job of drawing out the contrasts between the Babylonian account and the one in Genesis. I have to respectfully disagree with her assertion that Genesis 1 teaches the pre-existence of matter, however. Although it does not explicitly teach creation ex nihilo, I would contend that this doctrine is a legitimate theological devlopement of Genesis 1. J. F. Hobbins explains why in his blog entry here . I'll quote a short extract:
Gen. 1 does not teach creatio ex nihilo, but it does teach what creatio ex nihilo teaches, if that makes any sense. As Langdon Gilkey emphasized, the notion of creatio ex nihilo is vital. It is a bulwark against metaphysical dualism - or "multipolarism": in the polytheism of ancient Israel’s environment, there were not two but any number of supernal powers at odds with each other... According to Gilkey, dualism contradicts
.... two basic affirmations about God and his world ... The first of these is that God is the Almighty Sovereign of all existence.... Secondly, a metaphysical dualism .... always tends to become a moral dualism in which all good comes from the divine and all evil from the opposing principle.[1]
...According to Gilkey, [in post-Old Testament theology,] it was “discovered that in order to express the traditional monotheism of Jewish and Christian religions, [one] must, in speaking of creation, insist on creation out of nothing,” that God is “the sole sovereign Lord of existence,” and that “every aspect of existence must be essentially dependent on His power as the ground and basis of its being,” “that since all that is comes from God’s will as its sole source, nothing in existence can be intrinsically evil.”[2] [References] 1 Langdon Gilkey, Maker of Heaven and Earth: The Christian Doctrine of Creation in the Light of Modern Knowledge (New York: Doubleday, 1965 [1959]) 47-48. 2 Ibid., 49-50.
I was also shocked to find that the Professor not only didn't know her Latin, but didn't look it up before her lecture either. She remarks:
The humans will become like gods, knowing good and evil, not because of some magical property in this fruit; and it's not an apple, by the way, that's based on an interesting mistranslation. Do we know what the fruit is? No, I don't think we really know but it's definitely not an apple. That comes from the Latin word which sounds like apple, the word malum for evil is close to the Latin word for apple which if anybody knows... whatever [see note 1]. [Emphases mine - VJT.]
A footnote explains:
1. The identical word malum in Latin also means apple.
Not so. In Latin, the words for "apple" and for "evil" are similar in the singular (malus — apple, malum — evil) and identical in the plural (mala).vjtorley_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

----"Fbeckwith: For this reason, other non-materialist Christian academics, such as Thomists and some Cosmic Fine-Tuning supporters, who would ordinarily find ID’s project intriguing and worth interacting with (as I do), are hesitant to cooperate with a movement that implies to church goers and popular audiences that the very foundations of theism and Western civilization rise or fall on the soundness of Behe’s and Dembski’s inferences.” I am glad that you understand that ID and Thomism are consistent, but that many neo-Thomists reject it anyway---- not because it isn’t true, but because they think it creates the wrong impression. ----“However, what I am suggesting is that it is intel-lectually irresponsibile to offer Christians, especially prospective clergy, ID as the only legitimate non-religious alternative to Darwinian materialism that a Christian may authentically embrace, as these conferences seem to do.” So far, we have two Christian world views in competition: On the one hand, we have ID, consistent with but not tied to the Biblical view expressed in Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20, which teaches that God’s existence is made evident in his handiwork and that design in real. A purposeful, mindful God made the universe, but we don’t know how. On the other hand, we have the anti-Biblical, Christian Darwinist view, which teaches that God’s handiwork is not evident at all and that design is an “illusion.” A purposeful, mindful God used a purposeless, mindless process because, well, because, in spite of the scant evidence to support such a proposition, we just know that God had to do it that way. I can’t imagine why a thoughtful Christian would be scandalized by the first formulation and oh, so chummy with the second. ----(BTW, if the above reads like I clipped and pasted it from something else. It’s because I have. It’s a sliver of a 15,000 word article I have coming out early next year, “How to Be an Anti-Intelligent Design Advocate.” It is going to be published in a special issue of a law review on ID and public education). It’s a lot easier to float downstream than to swim upstream.StephenB_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

"fbeckwith" (#15) wrote about: "...an ID conference...sponsored by Shepherd Project Ministries...similar conferences held at Southwestern Bapist Theological Seminary...and Westerminster Theological Seminary..." How can religious conferences convince anybody that ID is science? These conferences will only reinforce the stereotype that ID is religious in nature. Talk about ID in conferences of the American Association for the Advancement of Science or the National Association of Biology Teachers and you will have proven that ID is science.PaulBurnett_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

Nevertheless, I argue that ID is not creationism and that those who continue to say that suffer from “guilt by association tourrettes.”
Hahahaha! I'll eagerly await your forthcoming article. Can you say more at this point about where and when? Or shall we await your announcement on these pages? Thanks.Lutepisc_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Thanks for your comments, Lutepisc. I have no sympathy for the "other side," and here I am thinking of the New Atheist types. And in my forthcoming article, I am certainly not soft on them. In fact, the entire third part critiques of Judge Jones and Richard Dawkins, but not for the reasons you may think. On the other hand, I do explain my resistance to ID and why I think, both philosophically and theologically, it is the wrong way to go after materialism. Nevertheless, I argue that ID is not creationism and that those who continue to say that suffer from "guilt by association tourrettes."fbeckwith_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

fbeckwith at 15: "I am, of course, not suggesting that there is anything wrong with having conferences in which theology and science are integrated and their interaction critically assessed. And, to be sure, any such conference should give ID a fair hearing and explain how it interacts with theology and the life of the mind." As a citizen of a country in which we recently had to stand up to any number of thugs who want to shut down public discourse, I am glad to hear that you do not think there is anything wrong with that. But if anyone did think so ... as we say here, see you on the ice. "However, what I am suggesting is that it is intel-lectually irresponsibile to offer Christians, especially prospective clergy, ID as the only legitimate non-religious alternative to Darwinian materialism that a Christian may authentically embrace, as these conferences seem to do." For what it is worth, many people know all too well that the usual response has been endless useless academic conferences and polite remonstrances with vicious materialist atheists. If someone wants that, fine. I attended one recently, and the food was outstanding. Totally outstanding. But as for the ideas: Used to was, and done to death, and it will wash no more. (Are you really planning to write 15 000 words on this? Fifteen words would have worked if the ID guys were wrong.)O'Leary_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

fbeckwith, your point is well taken. However, the hyperbole emanating from the ID camp is mirrored by that displayed by its critics. Which is cause and which is effect? At this point, they are reciprocal, I'm afraid.Lutepisc_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

P.S. If you have time to listen to only one course, here's the one I recommend: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible/content/sessions/lecture03.htmlLutepisc_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

"This is why it’s so important that theologians and ministers get on board with ID — so they can avoid this unintentional bleeding of the ranks." It would be one thing if the ID advocates were only offering their point of view as a mere hypothesis subjected to the usual give and take in scientific and philosophical discourse. (In fact, my earlier work on ID assumed as much). But that in fact is not the case. It has over the years morphed into a movement that treats the soundness of its arguments as virtually essential to sustaining the rationality of theism itself. Steve Meyer, for example, suggests that before the 20th century’s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, immaterialism and teleology were down for the count. But now ID stands ready, Meyer contends, to triumphantly procure these advances to help restore “some of the intellectual underpinning of traditional Western metaphysics and theistic belief.” Who knew? This embellished sense of ID’s importance in the march of history is not a virture. It is an unattractive enthusiasm that clouds rather than showcases ID’s important, though modest, publishing successes and the legitimate questions these writings bring to bear on many issues that overlap science, theology, and philosophy. Combine this lack of academic modesty with the ubiquitous propagation of ID within Evangelical Protestantism and its churches, seminaries, and parachurch groups (and even among some Catholics) as a new and improved way to topple the materialist critics of Christianity, and you have a recipe for widespread disappointment (and perhaps disillusionment with Christianity) if the ID ship takes on too much water in the sea of philosophical and scientific criticism. For this reason, other non-materialist Christian academics, such as Thomists and some Cosmic Fine-Tuning supporters, who would ordinarily find ID’s project intriguing and worth interacting with (as I do), are hesitant to cooperate with a movement that implies to church goers and popular audiences that the very foundations of theism and Western civilization rise or fall on the soundness of Behe’s and Dembski’s inferences. Take, for example, comments from a press release for an ID conference (30-31 Oct 2009) sponsored by Shepherd Project Ministries in Colorado:
The conference will explore the cultural impact of Darwinism and the ground-breaking new evidence for Intelligent Design that is changing the shape of this crucial conversation today. With presentations by some of the world's foremost Intelligent Design experts, this conference will equip Christians to understand the key issues and be able to speak effectively into a culture that is foundering in the sea of meaninglessness that is Darwin's most lasting legacy.
(http://www.shepherdproject.com/idconf/press/pressreleasechristian.pdf). See also the descriptions of similar con-ferences held at Southwestern Bapist Theological Seminary, 23-24 Oct 2009 (http://www.discovery.org/e/901) and Westerminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, 12-13 March 2010 (http://www.discovery.org/e/901). I am, of course, not suggesting that there is anything wrong with having conferences in which theology and science are integrated and their interaction critically assessed. And, to be sure, any such conference should give ID a fair hearing and explain how it interacts with theology and the life of the mind. However, what I am suggesting is that it is intel-lectually irresponsibile to offer Christians, especially prospective clergy, ID as the only legitimate non-religious alternative to Darwinian materialism that a Christian may authentically embrace, as these conferences seem to do. (BTW, if the above reads like I clipped and pasted it from something else. It's because I have. It's a sliver of a 15,000 word article I have coming out early next year, "How to Be an Anti-Intelligent Design Advocate." It is going to be published in a special issue of a law review on ID and public education).fbeckwith_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Has Dan Brown ever seriously claimed that the plots of his fiction books are true?
Not the plots, meaning what his characters do, but that's not the point. He most certainly claims that the historical backdrop of his fiction is true, or at least that it is well-attested historically.landru_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

"Yet, if I may ask, can there really be a truce here? I think it’s clear to most people that, taking Genesis as straightforward history, one can’t have one’s cake and eat it too." But that's exactly the point, RickToews. Genesis is not written as "straightforward history," as we understand those words today. Indeed, its intended audience had no newspapers or history textbooks, and would not have understood modern distinctions like this. Rather, the Creation and Fall narrative is a theological treatise--presenting its readers with an understanding of who God is, and discussing the relationship between God and humanity--in the form of a story. The story conveys truths. They are not intended primarily as biological or historical truths...but as existential truths about our human relationships with each other, about our capacity for good or evil, and about our ultimate meaning and destiny as humans. Denise recently posted 100 "unmissable Ivy League Lectures." That led me to "Open Yale Courses: Introduction to the Old Testament." http://academicearth.org/courses/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible I listened to and watched a couple of these lectures, and they mirrored my seminary training about the source and meaning of the Hebrew Bible. I recommend that you take a look at a couple of these lectures--especially those on Genesis. They are liable to open a whole new view for you on the meaning of the Bible. Be careful, though! Your mind may be changed in some unexpected ways!Lutepisc_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

I find that whenever I wish to justify my own opinion on something, I am sometimes prone to exaggerating the perceived sins of those on the opposing side. It's only human.tragic mishap_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

I never believed the Bible either -- until I read it. Which happened in my early 20s. It was not what I was lead to believe.tribune7_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

Lutepisc, #8. We have achieved (or settled for) a kind of truce in which we don’t permit biologists to interpret Genesis, and we don’t believe we can help them interpret their biological data.
Yet, if I may ask, can there really be a truce here? I think it's clear to most people that, taking Genesis as straightforward history, one can't have one's cake and eat it too. So if one is convinced that the scientific understanding is reasonably accurate, why is not the simplest explanation for the obvious discrepancies that the biblical account is merely the fruit of someone's creative imagination? Or, if God can make a claim in one age that another age is able to demonstrate false (OK, euphemistically, figurative or allegorical; the point is, the text looks straightforward and was historically generally understood to be so), why would those who were in a position to lift the wool from their eyes in this instance choose to believe him on the next thing he said, simply because they hadn't (yet) been forced by actual fact to reinterpret his words?RickToews_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

Considering Dan Brown’s blanket mishandling of basic historical facts in his novels, it’s hard to take Dan Brown’s personal history seriously. I started to write a sarcastic comment making a similar complaint about C.S. Lewis, to make the point that authors of fiction are writing fiction. But it came across as silly and aggressive, and frankly the idea seemed so obvious that I wonder if I haven't missed your point. Has Dan Brown ever seriously claimed that the plots of his fiction books are true?Learned Hand_{September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next