Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code

[The_Child]

---

as if most of you know what hermeneutics is. to begin copy pasting and making weird answers without even understanding the concepts of "faith" "reason" "culture" "History" "theology" "psychology of the times": oh please. let an opinion be an opinion... such objective truth of this things are best left to the scholars. I dont think anyone here is a scholar on the topic. People dont let your opinion feel as if its the fact.

[boxingfan529]

i just watch the movie last night.

and i was laughing with how the story progressed.

[SkylineScroller]

nop...all are entitled to their opinions, regardeless of how they try to convey it.... it is what they believe... you should make it look factual or else it would be nothing but a farce... heheh

by the way, what is the difference between scholars and us.... i believe they are just a step ahead....

[The_Child]

to make an opinion as something factual is deceptive. Something that is factual is closer to the truth while opinions are quite subjective.
Difference between ordinary persons and scholars? A theological scholar could atleast differentiate consubstantiation with transubstantiation, ordinary persons most likely couldnt. When you want to know a factual information about Herod Archaleaus you dont ask an ordinary person you ask a Biblical Scholar or A historical scholar or an Archaelogist. So thats the difference. Ordinary persons would most likely give away some distorted picture of Herod Archaleaus basing on the limited knowledge he/she has on the subject. A Scholar on that subject would know better.

[IceInHeLL]

An opinion may be subjective, but how can you tell that it is not close to the truth? Come to think of it, there was a time when people thought that the world is flat and then comes a man who said that he thinks that the world is round. In this case, wasn't the opinion more closer to the truth compared to the established fact at that time?

Scholars may know more than we do...but tell me, aren't they in disagreement also?

[The_Child]

An opinion may be subjective, but how can you tell that it is not close to the truth? ----> how can you tell its close to the truth? and thats the problem there. Opinions usually are formed on beliefs, gut feelings,so how can you tell its close to the truth? You verfiy it through objective method. And when you verfiy it through objective method it losses its essence of being an "opinion". it is no longer an opinion but becomes a "finding" an "analysis" a "conclusion" such that is devoid of personal subjectivity.

there was a time when people thought that the world is flat and then comes a man who said that he thinks that the world is round

how many persons around comes forward and say such things and happens to be correct in its results without any background study of the subject? Its called luck. And btw, such an idea was actually verified through Objective method. Differentiate opinion from hypothesis.

wasn't the opinion more closer to the truth compared to the established fact at that time? Was that an opinion or was that more of a hypothesis? A man of science just doesnt make any claim on anything when he/she doesnt have any datas on that object of inquiry.Now, one should also differentiate between mere opinion taken from the hodge-podge of pathetic literature and the fad of culture that walks across the street from the "Opinion" of Scholars and experts on the subject.


Scholars may know more than we do...but tell me, aren't they in disagreement also? yes of course such is the basic of Advancement. But such a notion doesnt excuse anyone to just jump right in the discussion of Scholars to actually make his/her opinion who him/herself consider factual. Its the same when a group of Medical Doctors are arguing with each other on the diagnosis of a certain patient, just because they cant agree doesnt mean a person who has no ample knowledge in Medicine could just jump right in and give his opinion and consider it factual.

What im trying to point out is that Opinions are opinions im not saying theyre bad all im trying to stress is, when people give an opinion about something they have no ample knowledge of they should not assert as if their statements are TRUE because it becomes deceptive and a point of intellectual insincerity. that is why the need for discussion. It only points out foolish pride in the part of the one giving the seemingly "factual opinion" and reduces him/her to somebody no better than the wandering idiot in the street with all his prohecies, talks and ludicrous distortions. but of kors, im just a kid.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

there was a time when people thought that the world is flat and then comes a man who said that he thinks that the world is round

how many persons around comes forward and say such things and happens to be correct in its results without any background study of the subject? Its called luck. And btw, such an idea was actually verified through Objective method. Differentiate opinion from hypothesis.

The earlier wrong belief of the universe having no beginning that was held almost unanimously by all scientists comes to mind.

But then Belgian Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Georges-Henri Lemaître came along and proposed in 1927 what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe. Later, and most importantly, scientific discoveries validated the priest's theory again and again, until its explanatory power surpassed that of other theories.

Now we know our expanding universe indeed have a beginning-- not only space but also time.

Pax.

[The_Child]

The earlier wrong belief of the universe having no beginning that was held almost unanimously by all scientists comes to mind.

But isnt it that What science could not verify or objectively study especially during the early times belong not to the realm of Science but to Philosophy. and during the medieval age St. Thomas already argued that the Universe had a beginning his notion of the Prime Mover. So the universe had a beginning. That was even before the Rennaisance.

Now we know our expanding universe indeed have a beginning-- not only space but also time.

actually that could also be argued. there are contentions that the Theory of the Big Bang and the Big Crunch is actually infinite processs of Explosion to implosion to explosion and so forth. Which means that there was a Big Bang or a very large Explosion of sorts which resulted to the Universe; it continues to expand and then when the universe reaches a point of expansion it begins to reverse its processs of expansion until we have the opposite... a universal Implosion; the Big Crunch. And the cycle continues to Big Bang and then so forth.

not only space but also time
When you said that time actually has a beginning is a theory by stephen hawkings right? or am i wrong. But then again, stephen hawkings mentioned a specific kind of time that was created, i think it was "Imaginary time" but i couldnt be sure for now. But what IM sure is he contended that TIME per se is independent of this space-time continuum. because when you argue, that if you meant Time as time per se has a beginning, it would entail that there was a time when there was no time? more concretely it contradict itself because when you say Big bang it actually entails a time when there was no big bang. But of course Time did not yet existed so how could that be? its a contradiction. You might have meant 'imaginary time' but i wouldnt know.

Pax tecum. Frater.

[alexxandy]

its interesting especially if u read the pre-quel book "angels & demons"

[IceInHeLL]

First of all...I'm lost. Which statements are supposedly posted as an opinion but submitted as a fact? Perhaps then, we could be more specific.

"Opinions usually are formed on beliefs, gut feelings"

"Usually" should be the key word there. But only a fool will make an opinion without any background on the subject. Scholar or not, I should say everyone is entitled for his opinion may he be right or wrong. Unless such an opinion will be made into law or should go to any public documents, then it should be verified first into facts.

"yes of course such is the basic of Advancement. But such a notion doesnt excuse anyone to just jump right in the discussion of Scholars to actually make his/her opinion who him/herself consider factual."

Sometimes, even a child has something to say - which at times may be right, in the middle of an adult conversation.

"when people give an opinion about something they have no ample knowledge of they should not assert as if their statements are TRUE because it becomes deceptive and a point of intellectual insincerity"

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to who and which statement did he/she delivers as a "factual opinion". I am with you on saying that there is a difference between an opinion and a fact. However, I don't think it is right to tell people to just shut up if they are not "scholars" on that field. Perhaps you could enlighten the church on that too. I think Jesus as a God is a mere opinion made strong by politics and brute force....but then again, that is just my opinion.