Two thirds of Britons who have read Dan Brown's thriller believe that Jesus fathered a child with Mary Magdalene, a claim rejected as baseless by historians and Bible scholars.
Now, let's reword that:
Two thirds of people who have read David Hoggan's writings believe that the Holocaust never occurred, a claim rejected as baseless by historians and survivors.
Or how about:
Two thirds of people who have read the Bible believe that the world was created in exactly seven days, a claim rejected as baseless by scientists.
Would you be okay with people defending those points of views. Of course you wouldn't, because they're not true
. You'd mock them or try to persuade them of the error of their ways, or ignore them as hopeless, depending on your personality. But you wouldn't stand with them against those trying to correct them, because they're wrong
, and clearly wrong.
So why do people defend Dan Brown's ahistorical writings? It's the same situation: baseless calims contradicted by the experts in the related fields. I can only assume there's some other motive at work, even if subconciously.
Hat tip to Open Book