In his Town Hall column, UNC Professor Mike Adams provides transcripts of "conversations people actually initiated with me after seeing my copy of The Da Vinci Code".  It’s hard to believe that Adams had so many conversations about The Da Vinci Code — initiated by others, as he claims.  It’s even harder to believe that he could memorize those conversations word-for-word.

But let’s ignore that and look at these supposed sparring "conversations" that Adams dreamt up writes about.  It’s a textbook example of logical fallacies:

Conversation 1

Quacky conspiracy theorist (Q): So, you’re just now reading The Code? What took you so long? How do you like it?

Adams (A): Well, I’m trying to enjoy it like a Grisham novel but, unfortunately, people are taking it way too seriously.

Q: Oh, do you mean the religious right?

A: No, I’m talking about the whacky conspiracy nuts who actually think the book is evidence of patriarchal oppression. Those nuts really annoy me.

Q: Well, you have to agree that it’s curious that the Bible was written by males, don’t you?

A: That’s a great point, I’ve never really thought of that.

Q: Really?

A: Yes, really. I’ll remember that the next time I read a report from the Women’s Resource Center or the Women’s Studies department.

Q: What does that have to do with it?

A: Obviously, since all the authors of those reports are women, they must be involved in a conspiracy to oppress men. I think I just discovered a new concept; matriarchal oppression. Thanks for the inspiration.

The point of the (fabricated) conspiracy theorist was quite simple — the Bible was written by men.  That fact alone does not mean that the Bible is just part of a conspiracy to oppress women — remember, that’s Adam’s strawman.  It does suggest, however, that literature from that era was dominated by men, and the female point of view was sadly lacking — a fact which is undeniable.

Conversation 2

Q: Oh, I just love that book. Have you read about the Council of Nicea and how they conspired to keep out the Gnostic Gospels? It was all so political the way they choose the Books of the Bible, don’t you agree?

A: No.

Q: Well, why not?

A: I’ve read the Bible seven times, the New Testament ten times, and all of the so-called Gnostic Gospels.

Q: And what have you concluded?

A: The New Testament books were selected long before 325 A.D. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were either written by eyewitnesses or on the basis of eyewitness evidence. The Gnostic Gospels were not. In addition to being incoherent fragments, they were written many, many decades later.

I just try to treat the life of Jesus as a murder mystery, which is easy to do since he was, in fact, murdered. If you want to solve the mystery, you have to know everything you can about the victim. To do so, you should prefer eyewitness testimony over all other forms of evidence. There was no better type of evidence back then. And, of course, only a fool would give preference to the accounts that were written later. That is a backwards way of thinking. I mean that literally.

Q: Then why does The Da Vinci Code suggest that members of the Council of Nicea conspired to exclude certain books for sexist reasons, if it isn’t true?

A: Because The Da Vinci Code is fiction.

Q: How do you know?

A: Because I picked it up at Barnes and Noble in the section marked “fiction.”

The flawed logic here is obvious.  Most, if not all, books — especially historical novels — borrow from facts, or at least have facts in them.  Is Adams going to deny that slavery existed, because he found Uncle Tom’s Cabin in the fiction section?

This is a form of division fallacy — the (false) argument that just because a book is a work of fiction, every detail in it is fictitious (i.e., untrue).

Conversation 3

Q: Won’t you admit that there was a conspiracy to label Mary Magdalene as a whore in order to deny her true place at the top of the Christian hierarchy?

A: No.

Q: Aren’t you open-minded enough to even consider that Pope Gregory’s public labeling of her as a whore was an intentional act undertaken in concert with the members of the Council of Nicea?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Well, Pope Gregory made the statement in 591 A.D. If he were Pope during the time of that council, too, that means he called Mary a whore in the 266th year of his pope-hood. You conspiracy theorists are either profoundly ignorant of history or just plain crazy enough to believe in time travel. I don’t know which is worse.

Another strawman.  Who said that Pope Gregory labeled Mary a whore while present at the Council of Nicea? 

The gnostic argument is this: The Council of Nicea was where the bishops basically decided on the divinity of Christ.  Pope Gregory, a couple of centuries later, claimed that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, in furtherance of the Council of Nicea edict about Christ’s divinity.  Hence, he was acting "in concert with" their goals.

Now, whether you believe that or not is up to you.  However, Adams here is simply mischaracterizing the argument into one he can win, i.e., that Pope Gregory was actually present at the Council.

Conversation 4 

Q: Why do you keep demanding that I produce evidence to support my theories? Do you have evidence to support everything you believe in?

A: I don’t know. Test me.

Q: You believe Jesus was a real person who walked the earth, don’t you?

A: Yes.

Q: But they haven’t found Jesus’ bones have they?

A: No.

Q: Is that consistent with the Bible?

A: As a matter of fact, yes. It is consistent with the story of his resurrection.

Ironically, Adams here is using a fallacious argument often employed by the most ardent conspiracy theorists: absence of evidence is the proof of something.  As in, there was a second and third gunmen on the grassy knoll — we know this because there is no existing evidence of it, showing that the government was complicit in the Kennedy assassination and cover-up.  It’s called an appeal to argument from ignorance.

Someone needs to point out that they haven’t discovered the bones of the Tooth Fairy either.  But that isn’t compelling evidence that she died and was resurrected.  It could mean that she never existed at all.

Conversation 5 

Q: Did you hear that they have uncovered evidence that Adam had another wife before Eve?

A: No. But, please, tell me more.

Q: She was not subservient to Adam so he divorced her and married Eve. Since Eve was more submissive they put her in the Bible.

A: Well, that’s certainly impressive research. When you got your Master’s Degree at Duke, I assume there was a “Dr. They” who uncovered all of this information. Or maybe there was a They Institute of Historical Research.

Q: Why do you have to be so crass and cynical?

A: I’m only joking. But when people talk about what “they” have discovered or research that “they” have done, I find that “they” generally don’t know what the hell “they” are talking about.

Leave it to Adams to create a fictional dialogue that makes him look like an asshole. 

This isn’t really a logical fallacy, since Adams here is, in essence, complaining that the authority/expert isn’t identified.  It’s a fair cop, but Adam’s himself is engaging in a bit of intellectual laziness.  Just because his fictional conversation partner doesn’t cite who "they" are, does not mean that "they" do not exist. 

Adams here is hardly one to complain about this however — a quick review of Adam’s columns reveals that he rarely if ever cites any authority for anything he says.

Conversation 6

Q: Are you really serious when you say that there would have to have been too many people involved in a conspiracy to keep Mary Magdalene’s marriage to Jesus a secret?

A: I am.

Q: Well, what about the fumes coming from airplanes?

A: I don’t know what you are talking about.

Q: Well, they have found that the government has been using commercial airplanes like the one we are on now to spray the earth with chemicals to counteract the effects of global warming. The government makes them do it. You can tell because the fumes look different from the earth than they did before global warming.

A: Ma’am, that is rich. I’m going to write about it in my column next week. I hope you don’t mind if I quote you. I promise not to reveal your name in the column. I don’t want to hurt your career as a practicing psychiatrist.

This exchange simply makes no sense.  How did they get from the subject of The Da Vinci Code to airplane fumes?

Here, Adams’ is exemplifying the ad hominem fallacy.  The woman here is wrong about the Da Vinci Code conspiracy because she is obviously a nut.