by John Douramacos.

As many have read in the book and many are about to see in the movie, there is another controversy regarding the Bible and its many claims about Jesus. I am not about to defend or attack either side of this controversy. My aim is to put the claims of the Da Vinci Code proponents under the purely logical analysis of the philosophical approach that is called Aristotelian logic. You may not be aware of it but you are using this approach to your decision making every day.

According to this system of thought, if our conclusions are going to be sound we must follow strict rules reaching these conclusions after looking at the data involving a certain issue. In its simplest form here is what Aristotelian logic is all about. You start with one or two obvious and universally accepted premises. These are called axioms. Then you use the three simple rules of logic. First is: A=A, an object or a statement is equal to itself. Second: If A=B then B=A. Third: If A=B and B=C then A=C. When you start with an axiom or two and you apply these three rules consistently and correctly then your conclusions will be sound. So in order to analyze any argument you need to first find out what the underlying assumptions or axioms are. Then you proceed to apply the three rules and determine if they have been correctly applied in arriving at the conclusions of the one or the other side of the controversy.

Let’s look at an example. Let’s start with the two axioms that people not too long ago accepted unquestionably and universally. One is “The Earth Is Flat”, the second is “All Material Things Come To An End” third “Flat things have edges”. Suppose you want to decide whether to travel all your life in the same direction. What would be the soundest decision according to Aristotelian Logic? Applying the three rules of logic we will have to say. The earth is a material thing therefore the earth has an end. Flat things have edges therefore the earth has edges. So based on your data that the earth is flat and the earth is a material thing your best decision would be to forget about traveling in the same direction for too long you might fall of the edge and who knows where you are going to end up. Notice that the erroneous conclusion is not due to the thought process, it is a result of a faulty axiom.

Now let us try to apply this logic to the Da Vinci code controversy. What are the underlying axioms in this whole issue? Historical data about the life of Jesus are at best inconclusive so even the biggest skeptic will have to agree that in this whole argument the axiom is “The Bible Is Authoritative and Reliable”. Thinking in Aristotelian logic terms this is the big problem. The vast majority of the people who care about the Bible, believe that the Bible consists of the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament. Remember that in order for the statement “The Bible Is Reliable” to be an axiom there must be universal agreement. How can we consider it then an axiom if people do not even agree what the Bible is? It appears to me that the proponents of the Da Vinci code argument are attempting to appropriate the standing of the Bible as an authoritative source by arguing that the gospel of Thomas and other such writings belong to and are a part of “The Bible”.

The irony of this approach is that this attempt to include more books in the Bible in order to appropriate its authority is the very same thing that strips the authority of the Bible because there is no longer universal agreement on what the Bible is so how can there be universal validity to the axiom “The Bible Is An Authoritative Source Of Information”? Of course the objection will be raised, the flat earth axiom was universally accepted and it was wrong! The problem here is that Galileo had compelling observational data to overturn a universal misconception.

What do the Da Vinci code proponents have that is compelling enough to change the number of the books of the Bible. Lets look at the book of Thomas, which they claim belongs in the Bible and supports their claims. Here is a quote from it “ He saw a Samaritan carrying a lamb and going to Judea. He said to his disciples, “that person … around the lamb.” They said to him, “So that he may kill it and eat it.” He said to them, “He will not eat it while it is alive, but only after he has killed it and it has become a carcass.” They said, “Otherwise he can’t do it.” He said to them, “So also with you, seek for yourselves a place for rest, or you might become a carcass and be eaten.” Is this the source of the compelling evidence? If I had to support any of my arguments on a book with such childish writing I would be ashamed to show my face in public!

In conclusion, the Da Vinci code may be a nice novel but it is just noise when it comes to establishing its claims as true history.

 

John Douramacos: http://www.makebucksonline.com