Humanism Part III: Missing the Boat

Finally, there are a few other aspects of Humanism I find to prove problematic upon inspection. Firstly, the Council for Secular Humanism asserts that it stands against any sort of authoritarian belief and yet I see no reason why. Now, if someone were to interpret "objective" or "absolute" moral laws as also authoritarian, I suppose that is a legitimate interpretation. However, we have already seen the problem in attempting to assert any moral statement at all without just such an absolute morality. Merely asserting that one does not see value in any authoritarian view of anything is not a premise for an argument, it is an opinion. And frankly, it seems like an opinion of someone who simply does not like God. Because God, if He exists, is the ultimate authority. And as Aldous Huxley rather openly and unashamedly admits in both Ends and Means and Confessions of an Atheist, he himself (along with many others) who argued for a philosophy without an absolute moral law did so on the basis that objective morality interfered with their sexual freedom.

And Humanist and Atheists are the ones celebrating their "Freedom" from the "shackles of religion" when the philosophy used to support it is not based on fact or reasoning, but on what you want to do. This is not freedom - it is slavery. Slavery to one's impulses and desires. Incidentally, this is the kind of slavery that Jesus said he wanted to free people from.

Humanism also must rely upon the "nobility of man," if human reason and inquiry are to be the basis of our rational, spiritual, and existential choices. And yet we see one thing that is certain about human nature, if nothing else, as we look back upon all of history; we see that human nature has not changed. It is still in our nature to commit murder. It is still in our nature to destroy ourselves. Therefore, any nobility in man is always tainted by the crassness of man.

When there is no God, then we will be forced to mistake man for God. And as we have discussed before on this blog, so I won't belabor the point, but this idea will not remain abstract; some actual men will become God - either Hitler or Hugh Heffner. Just look, for a moment, at Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Dong, and those like them; it is a dangerous thing for man to play God.

"I'm a fan of man. I'm a humanist. Maybe the last humanist."
- Satan, The Devil's Advocate

Humanism Part II: The Contradictions

The problem of internal incoherence (or contradictions) within the Humanist philosophy has begun to make itself apparent in my probing of Humanism's view on morality. I know that I did not get into this particular subject in my last post, although I had mentioned it on the first essay, but the problem of objective meaning also runs into the same problems as arguing for objective morality. Where "the best" can mean, I suppose, either the fulfillment of the meaning of people's existence, or the best moral possibilities to live life with. So I won't go on to rehash the same arguments except to exchange "morality" for "meaning."

On to the incoherency problems of Humanism. These contradictions, to a certain extent, are merely extrapolations of the problems I mentioned earlier. They deal with moral contradictions, but also with epistemological problems given a Darwinian presupposition.


A) Individual Freedom & Responsibility

The Council for Secular Humanism claims to champion both of these ideals. Without an objective moral framework (that problem I discussed in my first post concerning Humanism), how is this possible? Without a moral law to appeal to, what happens when freedom conflicts with responsibility? Which out to give way? Suppose a young man is tempted to leave the young woman he just impregnated with the consequences of their consensual actions? One Humanist might step in and say that "you ought to own up to the responsibility of your actions even if it limits your freedom" while the father himself could just as easily say (and be justified) that "incurring such responsibility limits my individual freedom." There is no law to say who is right in this case, and who is wrong. And if there is no moral law to govern such, then maybe all these children who grow up with one parent because their fathers (or mothers) decided to live for freedom rather than responsibility didn't do anything wrong.

What do we tell the abandoned parents? Or even the abandoned children? "Do not worry, your father (or mother) chose freedom over you and that is not wrong. Indeed, that is right." Here, the Humanist has no answer to give and no moral accountability to enforce.

And yet moral reflection tells us that this is wrong, and this type of behavior ought not to go on. We see the outworking of fatherless homes - they tend to produce violent children. And as Ravi Zacharias has pointed out, if fatherless homes have a bearing in raising violent children, what about a world that has rejected its heavenly father? We will see unparalleled violence, and we have (despite supposed "evidence" and assertions of Humanists that everything is getting better) seen just such unparalleled violence in the twentieth century. Indeed, the twentieth century has been the bloodiest one yet due to the deeds of atheistic regimes, dictators, and empires.


B) Individual Freedom & Tolerance

We have a similar dilemma here, but this dilemma proves even more incoherent than the first. If we ought to tolerate our fellow human beings, regardless of their beliefs - then ought we not also to tolerate those intolerant of others' beliefs (as some have accused Christians of being)? Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that someone who claims Christians are intolerant is absolutely correct (I don't think this is true); if tolerance is such an important virtue, than ought not the champions of Tolerance tolerate even those who are intolerant? If yes, then the virtue of tolerance as being so important (as we have made it in our pc-driven culture) is really not so important because we immediately contradict ourselves by not tolerating the intolerant. If no, then tolerance has become a meaningless virtue because it is okay even to not possess it to any degree!


C) Evolution & Reason

Since Humanism presupposes an atheistic worldview, and finds science to be of utmost value, it must posit some form of evolutionary accounting for the origins of life. Humanism also depends largely on the vehicle of human reason to bring about "the best," whatever that means. But let us assume that "the best" is logically coherent. This, too, is problematic as has been rigorously addressed by Alvin Plantinga. If the world arose by purely naturalistic means, then there is no reason to assume that our cognitive abilities ever produce true belief.

"Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principal chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. Improvements in sensor-motor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost (Patricia Churchill)."

There are those who, like Quine, who find support in Darwin's theory because those species, as he puts it, who are inferior have the "pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their own kind."

But Quine finds more comfort in Darwin than Darwin did in himself:

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

A fascinating dilemma. Because if our minds and cognitive processes are the product of mere natural phenomena at work, and evolution is concerned only with correct physical implementation and behavior, then there is no reason at all to assume that any thought or belief we have is rational or true. In which case, since we have "discovered" and "proven" evolution largely in part due to our cognitive processes, what does that say of our theory then? Either we are dead wrong, or evolution irrational to believe just as is any other belief we have because our cognitive processes are spawned from irrational and naturalistic processes.

But since I am writing this, and you are reading this, and it does make sense (is coherent, corresponds to reality to such a degree that we can understand what I am talking about) then we can know that we have rational beliefs, even if such knowledge is only brute in nature.


D) Evolution & Responsibility

If humans ought to be responsible, as the Council for Secular Humanism asserts, and assuming an evolutionary account of origins (or some other naturalistic account) , how do we reconcile survival of the fittest with responsibility for community? Why give pensions to retired employees? Why build and staff nursing homes? Why bother with funerals? Why have any truck with any person who is not only productive but at least maintaining the status quo of the species, if not advancing it? Whence then is compassion?

If we are purely the result of matter+time+chance, there is no justification for compassion of any kind. Who cares if that physically disabled person may be extremely mentally able? What application do differential equations have for the four F's of evolution?

And yet we see the value of caring for our elderly and infirm, or even applaud the good Samaritan. We cannot argue the "usefulness" of compassion and communal responsibility when evolution is, simply, blind and selfish. It cares not for feelings or worth; these do not even enter the equation. All that is of importance is ability to reproduce.

Without the guidance of an objective moral law, or an objective source of meaning, we will be left with nothing but doubt, confusion and bloodshed. Without attempting to wax melodramatic, we are seeing this happen. The secularization of most of Western Europe has found itself floundering in immorality, and that does have a profound effect upon the way you life your life. There are bars that condone drug use, underage sex and prostitution; and when one is shut down four more spring up because although the due process of law brings about some semblance of order, it cannot bring about the change of someone's heart that acts on a moral (or immoral) level, not a purely legal one.

And yet the Humanist encourages us to keep hoping, to "have faith" in humanity to better itself. Who is having blind faith here?

The band King Crimson has been around since 1969 at least, and yet the lyrics they wrote over thirty years ago still show us the awful truth of our time.


Epitaph

The wall on which the prophets wrote
Is cracking at the seams.
Upon the instruments of death
The sunlight brightly gleams.
When every man is torn apart
With nightmares and with dreams,
Will no one lay the laurel wreath
As silence drowns the screams.

Between the iron gates of fate,
The seeds of time were sown,
And watered by the deeds of those
Who know and who are known;
Knowledge is a deadly friend
When no one sets the rules.
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools.

Confusion will be my epitaph.
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back
And laugh.
But I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying.

Humanism Part I: Claims and Methodology

"Humanism is the second oldest religion in the world."
- Ravi Zacharias

Humanism is a philosophy that is alive and well in the twenty-first century, and its slogans and assertions find their glory in many American television shows, films and Broadway productions. All philosophies eventually do, as the arts serve as a medium for various philosophical views. But Humanism, also known as Secular Humanism, claims several things that many theists have thought incompatible, namely:

1) an atheistic philosophy
2) objective morality
3) objective meaning to life

There are other things that Secular Humanism purports to assert or champion, but we'll get to those later. It has been my conclusion that these things, in any objective sense, cannot all be true. Many great scholars have claimed likewise, and yet Secular Humanism still remains, to many, a viable philosophical view on which to base one's life.

"Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation (taken from the Council for Secular Humanism's homepage: http://www.secularhumanism.org )."

On the surface, this looks like a worldview that promotes morality and goodness, and many of you might think me some kind of philosophical or theological bully for picking on them. Let me repeat that I am not looking for an argument, nor am I looking to insult anyone, or anything like that. But Secular Humanism is an ideology that has implications for our lives if it is true, and thus warrants a critical examination.

I should also note that, given this definition of Humanism (and I will use Humanism as being interchangeable with Secular Humanism; I've never heard of anything called Supernatural Humanism) that Humanism is just as exclusive as any religion. Just as it is not possible to be both a Muslim and a Hindu (without contradicting the tenets of at least one of those religions, if not both) it is not possible to be, say, a Muslim and a Humanist. Or a Jew and a Humanist. Or arguably even a Hindu and a Humanist.


A) Reason
("Secular humanism emphasizes reason...")

Now, we see in this definition of Humanism (as in many other atheistic philosophies) that reason/rationality and belief in the supernatural are seen as mutually incompatible. This view is one we can thank many atheists (and theists, sadly) for presenting to our culture: that belief in the supernatural or in God is totally irrational. Faith is nothing but trust, and before one puts one's trust into anything, one ought to see if a particular person/idea/object is worthy of such trust. And that worthiness often amounts to one questioning whether it is reasonable to put one's trust into the thing in question. After all, most people don't go around blindly trusting everyone they see on the street. I am sure that even a cursory examination into criminal history will reveal that such naive trusting of random people has often led to the unfortunate victimization of the naive person.

Now reason is important, and ought not to be ignored. But reason alone will not take you to morality, or even to meaning. Kant thought that it would, and tried to make the case for just such a view in his Critique of Pure Reason. But, at least in the field of ethics, Kant ran into the following dilemma: suppose that a friend of yours hides in your house while being chased by a serial killer. The killer asks you if your friend is in your house - what do you reply? If you say yes, then you jeopardize the life of your friend. If you say no, you lie. Kant said that your imperative is to say yes to the killer even if it means you put your friend's life on the line. And Kant reached this choice by means of reason alone. But one could just as easily say that it is unreasonable to jeopardize the life of a friend by lying to protect him! This is, I believe, one of the catalysts that led to the separation of reason and the heart in morality; and the reason why many scientists postulate the meaning of life as purely the need to pass on genes to the next generation, and artists postulate the meaning of life as something that does not touch upon biology at all. Kant made a powerful statement in his attempt to use reason to discern ethics, and we are left with the storm he (and others) raised in the wake.

"Ethics has to be arrived at purely from the vantage point of reason, without the introduction of the concept of God and without using happiness as its goal." - Immanuel Kant.

As Ravi Zacharias once said in response to this, "isn't it fascinating today that we have lost all three: the concept of ethics, the concept of God, and the concept of happiness too." This is readily, and sadly, apparent. We now view ethics as purely subjective even though we react to someone's wrong-doing against us as though morality were objective. We have erased God from every area of our lives. And the leading article in the 75th anniversary edition of Forbes Magazine was "Why Are We as a People so Unhappy?" And the answer had nothing to do with economics; it had to do with the the loss of a moral law.

Neither reason, nor intelligence, will bring about the end that Humanism seeks. Indeed, given its naturalistic bias, how could one reason out caring for one's community either? Let the weaker of the community be culled from the herd and leave only the strong behind.

The most damaging thing to say concerning the role of reason in trying for an objective morality comes from leading atheist Kai Neilson who said, ”Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.” He also went on to say that reflection upon this awful truth depressed him.


B) Technological Progress
("Secular humanism emphasizes... scientific inquiry...")

We live in the days of cell-phone cameras, online grocery shopping, and weapons of mass destruction. One does not have to turn to The History Channel's Modern Marvels to see the amazing things we have rendered possible via our research and its application - our technology. Stephen Hawking, who once gave a lecture on whether or not humanity was determined or free-willed, closed with this comment; "Yes man is determined. But since we do not know what has been determined, he may as well not be. My only hope for us as humans is that we can keep from eating each other up for the next hundred years or so, because I am confident that in that time we will have the technology to carry us to other planets and then no one great catastrophe will destroy us all. Thank you ladies and gentlemen."

While Mr. Hawking may admirably hope that humanity will not destroy itself, he is folly-ridden if he thinks that separating us into smaller groups will eliminate our problems. Even then he does not say all our problems will be gone, but only that there will be no catastrophe on such a scale as to destroy all of us. But merely focusing on the betterment of the species, whatever that means apart from an objective framework, will not change the nature of that species.

"We are not living in the glorious dawn of science, but rather the gristly morning after where it has become all too apparent that science has only given us improved means, to achieve unimproved or rather deteriorated ends." - Aldous Huxley

I do think that Huxley's appraisal is rather slanted, but he raises a good point. Science may be able to give us longer lives, but science cannot say why it is good to live a longer life, or even if it is good at all. Science has given us cars, steam engines, bridged vast expanses of land, disparate tribes, clans and nations; and provided us with potentially clean sources of renewable energy. But science has also made possible the massacre of people on scales never seen in all the history of mankind.

I am not saying that science is evil. Science is a tool. But the hammer cannot tell the carpenter where it should be used and for what purpose. The carpenter will decide those questions. Let us hope that there is nothing wrong with the carpenter. There is, however, and the hammer cannot help him with those fundamental problems and dysfunctions. At best the hammer gets put away because it cannot be put to some destructive purpose; at worst the hammer is used as an implement of destruction.

Furthermore, science has also blinded itself. Without wanting to get into the whole Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate, let me just say that the fundamental problem with relying overmuch on science is that eventually one begins to think that only those things which are scientifically observable and thus scientifically knowable are worth knowing. But science cannot even prove that! Indeed, that is not a scientific statement, it is a philosophical statement. The supposed problem that science has (or should I say certain scientists have) with the supernatural, or the existence of God, is that such scientists don't disbelieve because the evidence definitively points in a certain direction, but because of philosophical presuppositions and biases that prevent rational inquiry into all fields of possibility.


C) Morality
("Secular humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life... Secular humanism emphasizes... responsibility, human values and compassion...")

Here Humanism's dilemma is not that morality is not good, but rather that it cannot define morality itself without contradictions. Without God, how can one defend an objective moral standard? In order to have a moral statement be morally meaningful, and not mere opinion or expression of feeling, then good and evil must really exist. But if good and evil exist, there must be a moral law to differentiate between good and evil. But if there is a moral law there must be a moral law-giver, but the atheistic view of Humanism does not allow for the moral law-giver that is necessitated by the moral law. If a moral law just exists, and if there is no God, then morality must be the product of some form of evolution too; but then it is no longer objective. If the moral law is no longer objective, then we are left once more with mere opinions or expressions of feeling. The Humanist view leads into an unintelligible circle.

But there are other problems with the Humanist view of morality also.

For instance, if there is no God, and therefore no objective morality, than what does it mean to want to "bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life"? Does it mean what each person finds best for him or her self? What if one person finds it best to rob, kill, or otherwise victimize others? Do we merely make a brute assertion that one's rights end where another's begins? But this sounds very authoritarian to me, which the Council for Secular Humanism says that Humanists ought to reject out-of-hand.

Ultimately there is no viable option for an ethic apart from God. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer so eloquently puts it:

"Who stands his ground? The great masquerade of evil has wrought havoc with all our ethical preconceptions. This appearance of evil in the guise of light, beneficence, and historical necessity is utterly bewildering to anyone nurtured in our traditional ethical systems. But for the Christian it simply confirms the radical evilness of evil. The failure of rationalism is evident. With the best of intentions but with a naive lack of realism, the rationalist believes that a small dose of reason will set the world right. In his short sightedness he wants to do justice to all sides but in the melee of conflicting froces he gets trampled upon without having achieved the slightest effect. Dissapointed by the irrationality of the world, he realizes at last his futiltiy, retires from the fray and weakly surrendurs to the winning side.

Worse still is the collapse of moral fanaticism. The fanatic imagines that his moral purity will prove a match for the power of evil. But like a bull he goes for the red rag rather than the man who carries it. He becomes entangled in nonessentials and falls into the trap set by the superior ingenuity of his adversary.

Then there is a man with a conscience. He stands single-handedly against overwhelming odds in situations that demand a decision. But there are so many conflicts going on all of which demand some vital choice, with no support save that of his own conscience, and he is then torn to pieces. Evil approaches him in so many specious guises that his conscience becomes nervous and vacillating. In the end he contents himself with a salve instead of a clear conscience and starts lying to his conscience to avoid despair. If a man relies only on his conscience, he fails to see how a bad conscience is sometimes more wholesome and strong than a good one.

The path of duty seems to offer a sure way out. They grasp at the imperative as one certainty. The responsibility for the imperative relies solely upon its author, not its executor. But when men are confined to the limits of duty, they never risk a daring deed on their own responsibility which is the only way to score a bull's eye against evil and defeat it. The man of duty will in the end be forced to give the devil his due.

What about then of the man of freedom? He values the necessary deed more highly than a clear conscience or the duty of his calling, who is willing to sacrifice a barren principle for a fruitful compromise, or a barren mediocrity for a fruitful radicalism. When then of him? He must beware, lest his freedom should become his own undoing. For in choosing the lesser of two evils, he may fail to see that the greater evil he seeks to avoid may prove to be the lesser. Here we have the raw material of tragedy

Some seek refuge from the rough and tumble of public life in their own private virtue. Such men however are compelled to seal their lips and shut their eyes to the injustice around them. Only at the cost of self-deception can they keep themselves pure from the defilements incurred by responsible action. For all that they achieve, that which they leave undone will still torment their peace of mind. They will either go to pieces in the face of their own disquiet, or become the most hypocritical of all Pharisees. Who, then, can stand his ground?

Only he to whom the last measure is not his own reason, his principles, his freedom or even his conscience--but rather his readiness to sacrifice all of these: only he who is called to deeds of obedience and responsibility in faith and single-minded communion with God; only he who will let his life become nothing, as answer to God's request or call."


"Anyone who will not deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me is not worthy of me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it (Matthew 10:38)."

The Da Vinci Code

Truth is more a stranger than fiction"


The Da Vinci Code has become a literary hit and a cultural phenomena, with various television programs, interviews, and books coming forward to defend the theological premises that the author asserts as fact. I would like to state upfront that I have not myself read the book. And then you, my reader, may feel inclined to dismiss whatever I have to say out-of-hand. But I am familiar with the theological issues in the text itself via many second-hand reports that all corroborate with each other.

Now, as I understand it, the Da VInci Code stands upon the following premises for its theoligcal "secrets."
1) That Jesus Christ and Mary Magdelane were romantically involved, probably married, and conceived a child together. That bloodline is still with us today.
2) This secret was kept by the Cathars, a group of heretics routed in the Middle Ages.
3) The Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon (The Knights Templar) also possessed this secret after discovering it themselves in some chambers beneath Solomon's temple. This also occured in the Middle Ages.
4) The "Priory of Sion" is the place/organization that conceals this bloodline begun by Jesus and Mary.
5) Leonardo Da VInci knew this secret, having been one of the heads of this Priory, and included clues in his famous painting "The Last Supper."

The author, I think irresponsibly, claims that every organization, ritual, secret society, etc. mentioned in his book really exists or did exist at the point he says it did. I only say irresponsibly because of the misinformation that is filling people's heads since reading his work. Now, in all fairness, the author might not have known that his work would become so wide-spread - but still I do not think this excuses someone from attempting to inspire many readers of a fictional (read: not real) account of history as, if you'll pardon the pun, gospel truth. Let us proceed to the premises under question.

Premise 1) Jesus Christ and Mary Magdelane were romantically involved and had a child together

There is no evidence for this kind of relationship anywhere in the Biblical text. Nor does the Biblical text describe her as a prostitute although (as there were many women named Mary) some have construed a certain prostitute named Mary to also be Mary Magdelane. The author, in his work, claims (in the voices of characters certainly) that the Church later denounced her as a prostitute and wrote her out of the gospel tradition. Now, Mary Magdelane is credited with being one of the first women to discover that Jesus Christ has risen from his grave, restored by God and the other disciples do not immediately believe her.

IF the Church were really just a bunch of old men with a strong bias against women, they would not have included this detail because it makes the men look like fools. If women are being "dominated" and "villified" by a supposedly anti-feminist organization (The Church), then they would not have left Mary in as the first to discover the truth of the Risen Lord - a truth concerning the Messiah that the disciples (men) did not yet understand! Why have a woman understanding things that you don't if you hate women, and are yourself a man? It makes no sense.

There is also an appeal to the GNostic Gospels discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. Now, these "gospels" were supposedly repressed by the church because they threaten the Church. These gospels also ennoble Mary Magdelane as a very important figure. First of all, Mary Magdelane does not need to be ennobled by any other extra-Biblical work because, if women are less than men, then why did the CHurch Fathers (if they hate women so much) include the verses from Galatians where Paul writes "There is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free; all are equal in the eyes of God." Why does Paul write of mutual submission of men and women in marriage as equal partners? Why do married couples, as written in Genesis, become "one flesh" and not a male-dominated partnership? Because in Christianity, once married, the couple becomes an entirely new entity (spiritually, but nonetheless still truly).

Furthermore, the gnostic gospels also villify women. The "Gospel of Thomas," which is often said to be prime evidence for Jesus' relationship with Mary as being romantic, also supposedly records Jesus as saying "Unless a woman makes herself into a man, she cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Hardly something Jesus would have said. Which is why these gospels are rejected by the Church - because if they were included, then we would have an *incoherent* Bible. We do not have one now, but we would if we included the Gnostic Gospels. Which, by the way, are the gospels that are dated sometimes several hundred years after the death of Christ in origin.

Premise 2) This secret was kept by the Cathars, a group of heretics routed in the Middle Ages.

The Cathars were a dualist type of heresy in the church. For one, they believed that Satan, not God created the world and that everything in the world was intrinsically evil including marriage and having children. Which brings us to the first contradiction in The Da VInci Code, if the Cathars held Jesus in enough regard to bear his "secret" concerning the child he and Mary Magdelane had - why do they also hold such a thing as marriage as evil? The CHurch, which was ruthless in its eradication of the Heretics (and I'm not necessarily justiffying that kind of behavior on the church's part) is also claimed to have been so ruthless because the Cathars kept this secret. Well, if they didn't keep any of their beliefs secret that brought the Inquisition and Crusaders down upon them, why protect this one? And if they did possess this supposed secret of Jesus' bloodline, why did they not keep all of their heretical beliefs secret to avoid suspicion entirely?

The Church's ruthless eradication of the Cathars is also not an isolated incident, sadly. The Church also carried on such pogroms against the Bogomil Heretics in Eastern Europe, The Knights Templar, and anyone suspected of witchcraft several hundred years later following the publication of the Malleus Malificarum, or the "Hammer of Witches." Thus the argument that the CHurch was so thirsty for Cather blood because of its ruthlessness ignores every major heresy in history.

Premise 3) The Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon (The Knights Templar) also possessed this secret after discovering it themselves in some chambers beneath Solomon's temple. This also occured in the Middle Ages.

Nope. The Temple was buried in the MIddle Ages, some 50-60 meters down and to dig it out enough to walk around in the ruins would have proven to be an impossible feat for a small order of militant monk-knights. The argument that they discovered some secret that amde them rich in the self-same temple is also misplaced. Yes the Templars became quite wealthy, but it was because of their great fame and status they won in service to Christian pilgrims venturing to the Holy Land. They were also some of the strongest and battle-ready Knights in all of Europe.

The book goes on to argue that The Templars were accused of heresy because they, too, possessed the secret of Jesus' bloodline being born in a child he had with Mary Magdelane. Obviously false. Philip the Fourth, King of France, brought up trumped up charges against the Knights Templar to get his hands on their accumulated wealth - hte King himself starting to look down the barrel of poverty. Within two years the Knights Templar had been disbanded. The official charges included many counts of pedophilia, sorcery and witchcraft, idolatry, practicing Islam, and on and on and on. When the Pope looked into the matter it was, unfortunately, too late - he was quite angry with his Inquisitors for the Pope himself found no trace of heresy within the organization.

Premise 4) The "Priory of Sion" is the place/organization that conceals this bloodline begun by Jesus and Mary.

Also false. There was a suppsoed interview with the "headman" of this priory some fifty years ago, wherein he alludes to documents that the author of "The Da Vinci Code" says traces the lineage of Christ to the lineage of the Maroviginian Kings (spelling?) who founded the nation of France. This dynasty was founded, I believe, by Charlemagne himself, the first Holy Roman Emperor. The actual documents only trace this "headman's" lineage to the blood of these Kings, and he later confessed that all the papers discovered were elaborate hoaxes trying to elevate himself in the eyes of the masses by portraying himself as a descendant of the first Kings of France. When word got out that these kings also supposedly bore the blood of CHrist, this "headman" flipped out and quickly confessed, not wanting to be suspected of claiming to be an actual descendant of Christ. THis has all been well documented by a French journalist some fifty to forty years ago.

Thus the Priory of Sion did exist, but it was not headed by such people as Leonardo Da Vinci or ISaac Newton, but only three people were ever its members and it was "founded" in the nineteen hundreds, not at the turn of the first millenium AD.

Premise 5) Leonardo Da VInci knew this secret, having been one of the heads of this Priory, and included clues in his famous painting "The Last Supper."

Well, see above for Leonardo himself having ever been head of an organization that post-dated him by some 600 years or so.

But Leonardo Da VInci, credited with many intriguing ideas concerning engineering marvels, was himself a questioner and general sceptic, not a mystic or man concerned with faith. For someone to claim that he hid clues as to the secret of this Jesus-Mary bloodline and its descendants flies into the face of everything that we know about this man.

Furthermore, for those who point out the "man" sitting next to Jesus Christ in Da VInci's painting "The Last Supper" is far too effeminate to be Saint John, please look at Da VInci's other works. He has other paintings where the same figure is painted, all by himself, and is depicted in a quite androgynous, if not strongly effeminate, figure. And no one doubts that Saint John existed with good reason.



The verdict? The theology of "The Da VInci Code" hasn't got a leg to stand on. It may make for an interesting read, it may even be a very good story, but its theology is pure and utter bunk. It is fiction. And it astounds, and disturbs me, that we are so willing to jump onto a band wagon that decries the gospel as myth, the church as women-hating conspirators through the span of two thousand years rather than look at the gospels and the figure of Jesus Christ himself as reliably portrayed by the coherent Bible and deal with his challenging questionJesus asked of Saint Peter:

"Who do you say that I am?"