Atheist scholar: I dislike TDVC as much as Christians do. And here's why...

An unexpected e-mail arrived a couple of days ago:

As a medievalist, I have been bemused and frustrated by the way Brown's novel has been taken as historical fact since I first had the displeasure of struggling through his turgid prose in late 2004.  Since then I have found myself in discussions/debates with Da Vinci fans regarding the many and various historical errors in the novel both online and in 'real life'.  In many of those online discussions I have pointed people to online resources on the subject as well as to the small library of books on the novel's claims.  I have often recommended your The Da Vinci Hoax and several of the online articles by yourself and Sandra Miesel, particularly "The 'It's Just Fiction!' Doctrine: Reading Too Little Into  The Da Vinci Code".

Inevitably, the response to these recommendations has often been that you and writers like you are simply "dupes of the Vatican" (something Darrell Bock would, no doubt, find highly amusing) and that you are simply defending your faith because you are scared of the 'revelations about history' that the Code supposedly makes.  These people usually assume that I am a Christian as well and are often confused when I explain that I'm an atheist.

Frustrated by this, I set out about 18 months ago to produce an online resource which examines the claims made in the DVC from a purely historical, religiously-neutral perspective.  This has been partly to counter the idea that only Christians disagree with this novel's silly claims, partly to show that religious critics like yourself make arguments which are soundly based on historical research and partly to provide a resource that non-Christians can regard as 'unbiased'.

The site is not fully complete, but the 'Chapter by Chapter' analysis of the 'historical' claims made in the novel is up (weighing in at 45,000 words in total), along with other resources.

While I appreciate that your beliefs and mine are diametrically 'opposed', I hope you might find my site useful and would also hope that you might feature it on your blog.  I have already received enthusiastic feedback on it from Christians, who have thanked me for the respectful way I have handled sensitive religious subjects.  They've also mentioned they've found it useful to direct people to a 'non-religious' site, to counter the regular accusations of 'bias'.

Thanks in advance,

Tim O'Neill
'History vs the Da Vinci Code' Webmaster
www.historyvsthedavincicode.com

In the "Author" section of his site, O'Neill writes:

As a regular contributor to various online fora on history, I soon began to see the impact this novel was having on peoples' perceptions of history. I saw people making claims about the Gnostic gospels, early Christianity, the Emperor Constantine, the Knights Templar and Jesus which were not supprted by the historical evidence but came directly from their reading of this novel. Eventually I got tired of repeating myself in countering these claims and decided that an online resource comparing the assertions in the novel to the evidence could be a useful project.

Be sure to check out this excellent resource, especially the "Chapters" section, which provides a running commentary on the novel's many errors, chapter by chapter. And don't miss the "Fiction?" page, which explains why an atheist would bother to spend time responding to a work of fiction.

BTW, here is part of my response to Mr. O'Neill's initial e-mail:

I especially appreciate your work because I am so tired of hearing that Christians who are responding to TDVC are "angry" or "afraid" or "weak in their faith" or "narrow minded." As Sandra Miesel has noted on many occasions, even if she was atheist and had little or no interest in the theological/religious issues involved, she would still be offended by Brown's novel because of how it purports to be based on fact, has been accepted as a well-researched work by many reviewers and readers, and yet is filled with errors, howlers, and outright falsehoods about verifiable historical facts. And the way that Brown was initially touted as being some sort of great researcher is incredibly pathetic. And the shrugs and "so what?" attitudes that have accompanied the movie have been equally exasperating.

I also appreciate the kind remarks made on your site about our book. Obviously, as you note, we do come from different perspectives and, in a different time and place, we might have a rousing (and civilized, I think) debate about theism and atheism. But just as I know that many Christians do have a blind and poorly informed faith, I also know that many atheists and agnostics do indeed respect and value truth. And so your efforts to educate people about the many historical errors of TDVC is greatly appreciated.

Comments

[Keith]

I thought you "don't believe in atheists".

[MLC]

Carl doesn't. Tim O'Neill obviously does.

[Paul H]

Tim has a great site! It's much of the same information that's in "The Da Vinci Hoax", but it's probably true that there are people out there who will see Tim as less biased than Carl and Sandra, even though they make many of the same points. I have already highly recommended Tim's site on a Christian message board that I frequent.

[Paul H]

I also wanted to add that I like the way that Tim simply goes through TDVC chapter by chapter, following each quote from TDVC with the true historical explanation of the claim. This does result in some repetition, as TDVC makes some claims multiple times, but it also gives the impression that nothing is being left out. This approach also ensures that the claims that are stressed the most in TDVC are also stressed the most in the debunking of TDVC. I would love to see footnotes and a bibliography added to the site, but obviously the author has only a finite amount of time, and I'm sure that the content which he has there already took many, many hours to put together.

[Tim O'Neill]

Many thanks to all who have commented on my site and, especially, many thanks to Carl and Sandra for featuring it on this blog.

Paul - the Bibliography and Links pages will be up in the next week or so. Full footnotes and references will be added to my site ASAP. I just wanted to get the bulk of the 45,000 words I'd already written up before it was too late.

As for Carl not believing we atheists exist - I can only assure him that we do. He may think that we, deep down, still believe in 'God', but I've found over the years that many theists have many odd ideas about us. Most believe that we don't believe God exists, whereas almost all of us simply have no belief in God, which is something else entirely. I often find myself correctng non-believers about believers in God, so it's hardly surprising some believers also have some erroneous ideas about atheists. We are a tiny and largely misunderstood minority after all.

I can only assure you all that I have never eaten any babies, I live a moral and rather unremarkable life and I think more about who and what we humans are and should be than most people, including most average Christians.

Thanks again for your feedback on my site. The salient point is that the historical evidence is neutral, whether you are Christian, atheist, Buddhist or Shinto. And that evidence does not support the DVC in any way.

Best regards,

Tim O'Neill
www.historyvsthedavincicode.com Webmaster

[Carl Olson]

"As for Carl not believing we atheists exist - I can only assure him that we do. He may think that we, deep down, still believe in 'God', but I've found over the years that many theists have many odd ideas about us. Most believe that we don't believe God exists, whereas almost all of us simply have no belief in God, which is something else entirely."

Well said and entirely correct. Except that I do, in fact, believe that atheists do exist -- and I fully understand that there are many sorts of atheism, just as there exists various types of theism. I've read books about and by atheists for many years and have had several spirited and educational exchanges with atheists, free thinkers, and agnostics. My comment about "not believing in atheists" was said in jest, which I thought was obvious. But Keith has shown time and time again that he doesn't like my obvious statements, nor does he like me, as he thinks I am a "jack ass." Ah well. Not surprisingly, such juvenile remarks seem par for the course when it comes to fans of TDVC.

[Keith]

I'm well aware that your comment was said in jest, and I assumed that you would realize that mine was as well. I thought that was obvious. As you have shown time and time again, you like to twist my words and make up things to "prove" your points...par for the course when it comes to ultra conservative Christians.

Paul - I just wanted to thank you for your kind words, but Mr. Olson cut off the last thread before I had a chance. I enjoyed hearing your ideas, and I wish you all the best.

[Carl Olson]

"As you have shown time and time again, you like to twist my words and make up things to "prove" your points...par for the course when it comes to ultra conservative Christians."

Sigh. More ad hominem vitriol. I wish I were as openminded as you. Anyone who actually reads your remarks and my responses will know who is twisting what.

http://insightscoop.typepad.com/davincihoax/2006/05/godspy_how_dull.html#comments

[patrick cahill]

i love me.pat.

[Rachel Menzi]

I enjoyed this guided tour through Brown's fiction and appreciate the thorough scholarship and balanced approach.

One note - I found the voice of Langdon, in the quotes presented, to sound very much in my mind like the voice of Dr. Hannibal Lecter talking to Christine in The Silence of the Lambs. Interesting parallel.

[Kirsi]

Just a couple of thoughts: Looks like most Dan Brown bashers get accused of being either literary snobs or unable to handle those 'controversial' ideas in his books by those fans of his who write on the comments of sites like yours. But I'm neither and I hate his writing anyway.

Ever since I tried to read 'Angels and Demons' and a bit later 'Da Vinci Code' (I almost managed to finish the first, with the Code I gave up a lot sooner) I have occasionally amused myself by searching for web sites like yours. Mainly because I guess I feel sort of cheated. I'm not a literary snob, rather the opposite. I prefer books with chases and cliff hangers and handsome heroes. I sort of like Jane Austen but I would like her a lot better if she had included a few sword fights and the heroines getting kidnapped, and rescued at the last moment, into her stories. So Dan Brown sounded exactly my kind of writer. Except I guess I have been reading too much. Some of the popular writers can actually write, and even reading the ones who can't it seems it is possible to develop some sort of eye for bad plotting and cliches. And I just couldn't handle Dan Brown's books. Besides, while I know pretty much nothing about art history I do know a bit about science, and there were several howlers in 'Angels and Demons'. I don't mind if the facts are changed a bit for the sake of story, but there is such a thing as too much. Except now it is beginning to look like he didn't change them. Rather that he, and his wife, simply can't do research.

And as for Da Vinci Code, or the part I did read: I have been a Wiccan for over twenty years. One of the problems I see with my religion is, shall we say, fluffy ideas of our history (like it dates from prehistory, and that the medieval witches were actually these nice herbwives burned by the nasty Jesuits and there were lots of them and so forth. Well, Finnish witches were sometimes condemmed for pagan practices, but they were mostly men, they were hanged and most of the trials happened after the Protestant Reformation). And it seems Dan Brown used the same sources I see quoted way too often on the web pages or books written by the 'fluffy bunny' school of neopagans.

Well, this is not a very coherent post, but I guess I just wanted to point out that not only literary types and Catholics hate his books.

[Kiran]

The links don't seem to lead to the original site but to another site, which simply boosts Dan Brown. Here is the original, which has versus for vs... God bless

[Gunnar]

What happened to the site History vs Dan Brown? This makes it seem like someone got to him, sued him or something.

[Free Movies]

Quite interactive Blog..Thank you for post..I enjoyed reading about the movies..I really love watching movies online..Do you also love watching movies ?