Dan Brown and The Lost Symbol

The newest of Dan Brown books has been released; entitled "The Lost Symbol," it deals with Freemasonry in early America and it is a huge, huge disappointment.

The way the book ends is...

Just kidding-no spoiler here.

I have not read the book (although, I actually do know the way the book ends).

I have not read any reviews of the book.

I barely know that it is about.

This is why knowing virtually nothing about it, I consider it a disappointment:

I was really hoping that after becoming a very, very wealthy celebrity after writing novels that sought to discredit Christianity Dan Brown would continue that trend and go after every religion.

Let him besmirch Islam, put down Buddhism, claim that the main tenets of Hinduism are a fraud, contradict Taoism, tear down Judaism, etc., etc., etc.

But alas, no.

Unless, one were to consider Freemasonry a religion in which case perhaps Dan Brown is continuing his crusade.

However, he appears to be interested in them more in terms of secret societies who communicate via esoteric symbolism and involve themselves in political intrigues.

The Da Vinci Code gained Dan Brown wealth and celebrity while The Satanic Verses gained Salman Rushdie a death sentence.

Meanwhile, the militant activist new atheists besmirch Judaism and Christianity from the safety and comfort of countries premised upon Judeo-Christian principles while all but ignoring radical Islam or any other belief system.

Will no one play fair and present balanced condemnations?

I have provided information about the Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons and The Last Templar including information about the Salman Rushdies affair at these links: here and here.

I recently read a fascinating interview with Dan Brown by James Kaplan-"Exclusive Interview With Dan Brown - Life After 'The Da Vinci Code'," Parade, Sept 13, 2009

James Kaplan noted that Dan Brown, "still seems surprised that his book started such a frenzy." You have to wonder about such personages as Dan Brown. Is he really thinking, "Come on now, I attempted to discredit Christianity and accuse a real life Roman Catholic organization of murder; what's the big deal?"

There came a point in Dan Brown's life when "he decided to write fiction." But that is just the issue is it not? At least with the Da Vinci Code he claimed to be premising his novel on fact and then simply collected his millions of dollars and sidestepped all historical and factual challenges.
Dan Brown stated,

The furor died down, and I realized that none of it had any relevance to what I was doing. I'm just a guy who tells a story.

None of it had any relevance to what he was doing? The only relevance was to what he was doing. He was the one misrepresenting Christianity, history, even artwork and architecture. This is that to which the furor pertained.
He also stated,

The power that religion has is that you think nothing is random: If there's a tragedy in my life, that's God testing me or sending me a message. That's what conspiracy theorists do.

Do not forget that just because you are paranoid it does not mean that no one is out to get you.
He also made a statement that is actually very accurate and could/should be very useful to a lot of people who think that atheism is based on "science" or that "science" is the only reliable epistemic system.

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. The irony is that I've really come full circle. The more science I studied, the more I saw that physics becomes metaphysics and numbers become imaginary numbers. The farther you go into science, the mushier the ground gets. You start to say, "Oh, there is an order and a spiritual aspect to science."

Indeed, note the words of Gil Dodgen:

I was raised an atheist, and was very devout as a kid. I studied astronomy, cosmology, and the origins of the universe. I remember saying to a scientist, "I don't get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, and that all the laws of physics were fine-tuned to make life possible. Wouldn't this require design and purpose?" Unfortunately, the response I got was, "Only mindless, uneducated religious fanatics ask that question. It was all an accident. Stop asking stupid questions."

But I wasn't mindless, uneducated, or a religious fanatic. I was an atheist!

A light went off, and I said, "Materialism doesn't make sense. Design and purpose in the cosmos makes much more sense to me." And I just gravitated away from atheism.

Both were shrugged off and both ended up recognizing that, as with everything, the scientific endeavor is premised upon certain necessarily basic beliefs. Although, what Dan Brown actually believes about God is somewhat obscure.

When asked "Are you a Christian?" he responded:

Yes. Interestingly, if you ask three people what it means to be Christian, you will get three different answers. Some feel being baptized is sufficient. Others feel you must accept the Bible as absolute historical fact. Still others require a belief that all those who do not accept Christ as their personal savior are doomed to hell. Faith is a continuum_we're each following our own paths of enlightenment.1

What of Dan Brown's real life theology? Here is a taste:

"We now turn to God for only a handful of questions that science has not yet been able to understand. We still have religion based on "proof from incredulity" (it must be so because there is no other explanation). We still believe in a God of the gaps_
We are unable to conceive of our hopes, dreams, memories, and spirits evaporating into thin air when we die, so therefore we say there must be an afterlife. We can't imagine it another way_
The biggest challenge to our spiritual being is our brains are evolving_
How do we become solidly minded scientifically, without losing our religion?"2

Finally, he also stated, "I think one reason my books have found mainstream success is that they're written from a skeptical point of view." Or, it could be that he was besmirching Roman Catholicism at a time when the news was saturated with reports of pedophilic priests and the Roman Catholic church's cover-ups.

1. 1. Dan Brown from the faqs section of danbrown.com
   
2. 2. Father Jonathan Morris for FOX Fan Central, Dan Brown Responds - 'The Da Vinci Code' - Part II