I don't get why it couldn't just be anybody's shroud. Didn't everyone at that time get a shroud.
[1] https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5282847/jewis...
Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient shroud, you would have to explain how the image on it was produced. Corpses don't leave images on shrouds, and even if it were true that everyone in ancient Israel were wrapped in a linen shroud when they died, people certainly didn't paint those shrouds.
Well, they have haven’t they? I think you need to put yourself in the shoes of a believing Christian/catholic. There is really no need for them to try and explain scientifically what is explained miraculously. From the miraculous POV the act of resurrection itself may have created the image and since man cannot replicate that process, it’s impossible to explain it scientifically. But what we do know is that certain energetic particles applied to certain mediums do leave traces and can leave negative images. So even science helps to lend credence to their theory of a miracle
So if it is an ancient piece of cloth and there isn’t a scientific explanation yet that adequately explains how the image could be produced and since you cannot prove that a God does or doesn’t exist…a believing Christian can easily rely on faith that it is what it is purported to be.
So it’s up to you to prove them wrong, not up to them to prove that they are right.
So the burden solely lays at the feet of the unbelievers. They are the ones that have the burden of proof, because until they can truly prove that it’s not what it purports to be, the mystery of it convicts them in their unbelief.
The only entity that would lose something by the "shroud" being recognized for what it is is the Savoy noble family who used it in their story of legitimacy, for all that's worth, and perhaps the church in Turin that houses it. It doesn't matter all that much to believers or non-believers otherwise.
For believers, the miracle of the Resurrection is attested in myriad other ways, and a real relic of it would at best be a beautiful holy reminder. For non-believers like myself, the resurrection is beleieved to have never happened through much more convincing arguments, so the shroud can't be anything but a fake. How and from what time exactly is an interesting curiosity, like the Voynich Manuscript, but it is not some grand mystery. It would be literally impossible to scientifically ascertain it was Jesus Christ's shroud, a Holy relic of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, so even if it had turned out that it was not a 14th century forgery but a genuine 1st century shroud, it still wouldn't have constituted proof (or even very convincing evidence) of Christianity.
Sure, you would want that, but what does the science actually say at this point? Recent news stories are claiming that the shroud cloth may date back to the 1st century. That calls the earlier dating tests of the shroud cloth into question that might have proved scientifically that it was a forgery. Apparently science also hasn’t adequately explained how the image was created either. So all science really seems to say is “we don’t have any clear answers yet”. So has science actually proven that it’s fake? It starts with that assumption of course because miracles cannot exist, but evidence of an obvious forgery is thin. That is why you will get a disconnect between believers and the non-believers. The believer doesn’t start with the premise that a miracle cannot exist so in lieu of other obvious forgery evidence, their faith in the existence of miracles creates the possibility.
I am interested in the controversy around the mystery more than the object itself. I personally believe it’s a forgery—not because I don’t necessarily believe in miraculous things (I am a Christian) but because I am familiar enough with the shenanigans of the church throughout the centuries to know that creating a relic is a means to an end towards increasing the power of the church. I find the emotional reaction to it of some non-believers more interesting than those folks who believe it’s real. That fiery motivation behind the desire to disprove the validity is fascinating. Why do they have that desire to prove a forgery of something that even the Catholic Church doesn’t take an opinion about?
Those recent news stories are based on a bogus study in a no-name journal written by people who invented the method they are applying to the "shroud". It is equivalent to citing a blogpost. The real science was done in the 80s, using a well-established method that is still the gold standard for dating organic material today, C14 dating, and showed what the historical record also shows: the cloth is coming from sometime in the 14th century.
So the evidence for a forgery is: extremely well-established science says it was made around the 14th century. The earliest sources we have on it, also from the 14th century, are a Bishop calling it an obvious fake, to which a Pope acquiesces. It only starts being considered a real relic almost two centuries later, after an up-and-coming noble family makes it their claim to fame and a political object.
So not only is the evidence of it being a fake pretty obvious, there is also no evidence whatsoever that would suggest it's not a fake. So it is quite annoying when people keep insisting otherwise.
And no, the fact that we're not sure what precise technique was used to create the image 650 years ago is not evidence of anything. I've already written multiple comments in this thread on this particular point, I won't repeat them again.
That’s circumstantial evidence, not scientific. Like I said, I think it’s a forgery, but I don’t need it to be real. The flip side of that coin is I don’t need it to be fake either…so why do non-believers care so much to argue that it is?
What drives that need? What is so important or dangerous about the object that it must be revealed as a fake to the minuscule amount of Christians out there that believe that it’s not?
Evidence is evidence. It's not proof, of course, but it's evidence that has to be evaluated, especially in establishing historicity, where experiment is impossible.
> What drives that need? What is so important or dangerous about the object that it must be revealed as a fake to the minuscule amount of Christians out there that believe that it’s not?
This "deep need" is an invention of users. Some people wondered if the object might be the real shroud of Jesus Christ, as it was claimed, or if it is a forgery. Others studied this question using the relevant scientific methods (carbon dating, studying historical sources, fiber analysis, etc) and came up with a scientific answer, with high confidence (but not certainty) it is a 14th century forgery. Literally all of the evidence studied points in that direction, with no credible evidence whatsoever suggesting otherwise.
But, some minority didn't like this answer, and keep inventing reasons why the original investigation (which many of them asked for) was wrong. When we encounter such invented reasons, many of us who care about the truth like to combat it.
So, in summary, it was Christians in the Catholic Church who asked for a scientific investigation of the nature of the Shroud of Turin. The investigation was performed, and it was deemed a forgery. But the Church and some others didn't like the answer of the investigation they themselves asked for, and are now making up facts and methods by which to "scientifically" show that it is in fact a real relic. Some people, both Christian and non-Christian alike, like to debunk pseudo-science wherever they encounter it. That's the whole of this thing.
The church does not have a position on it. You’re expanding the number of people of the religious side who really deeply care about it. And this forms my opinion of the motivation of those skeptics who feel the need to prove again or get heated when the topic arises that it’s not genuine—It feels like it’s less about debunking an object and more about debunking a church.
The shroud isn’t really for the unbeliever, it’s for the believer…as a reinforcement of their faith.
The Church officially takes no position on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. I suppose the authorities have no reason to make an official declaration either way. The Church has suffered embarrassment before trying to prove doctrine with science, or disprove science. Galileo comes to mind.
The "dedicated office for investigating miracles," now known as the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and before that the more familiar Inquisition, investigates claims of miracles. It accepts relatively few, between 2% and 10% depending on the time period and the type of alleged miracle. I don't know if that implies that "charlatans are not tolerated in the Church," though. The Church has tolerated quite a few charlatans over its long history, and quite a few frauds and people who bought or extorted their way to bishop, cardinal, and pope.
While you got it right that Catholic doctrine does not encourage or require unquestioning belief in everything, it does require faithful Catholics to believe what the Church tells them is true. Historically asking too many questions would land a curious person in trouble. These days the Church does not have the worldly power it once did to enforce its rules.
Surely this is jest. I like the sentiment, but I don't find many Christians doing much questioning. At least not modern 21 century Christians. Old School Catholics or Jesuits used to be a bit more open to science. Even Evangelicals were more open to questioning and even allowed abortions. It was only in recent decades it seems religion took a more 'old testament, brimstone, fundamentalist' bent.
I have not heard about this office in the church, but I'm sure they know who is paying their bills. When a petroleum company pays for a study about the sustainability of fossil fuels, one should probably consider who's paying the bill when evaluating the conclusion.
This is a common technique done with a mouth tube in older times, a bulb sprayer later and an air brush most recently.
I'd also say that I'm pretty sure the mysteriousness of the technique is way overblown. Sure, we don't know exactly what it was, but there are trace pigments on the cloth, and ~600 years of handling and being displayed without much protection, plus being doused in water ~500 years during a fire, will wash off pigments in ways we can't fully predict.
2. About the second point - it remains a mystery but that in no way makes the shroud itself a fake.
It still does not mean that it has anything to do with Jesus. There are plenty of things we don’t know how to make anymore.
The second point was only in reply to someone saying "but what if it was some random shroud from the 1st century unrelated to Jesus?", and I merely explained why that makes much less sense than even the miracle explanation.
Additionally, their findings contradict a very well established C14 dating technique, in an extremely well documented and thought out study, using 8 different world class laboratories, for which their only explanation is "contamination" (ignoring the fact that the sample is pristine by comparison with many artifacts routinely dated using C14).
Also, if you want to cite a study, maybe find the link to the study, not a Daily Mail article.
Haha, MDPI. lol. It’s worse than low impact factor.
The article (the one that this thread is about, not the study) addresses exactly this. The author makes the point is C14 dating is widely misunderstood by non-experts who still decide it's within their expertise to find fault with the it.
> … to distort the result by 13 centuries the threads employed in the mending would have had to have been more numerous than the threads of the part to be mended
Furthermore, the samples were examined by two textile experts, and later by a lab that looked for trace fabrics that could have affected the radiocarbon dating, and they all confirmed that the sample was the original fabric.
No, you’re making this too complicated.
It happened miraculously because god is all-powerful and can do whatever, whenever. Boom. Solved. Easy.
A miraculous shroud just seems showy.
It seems reasonable to assume other miracles would have occurred that were not recorded, in particular considering that one of his teachings was to do good for its own sake, not to have the good be noticed by others.
[0] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021%3A24-...
I've also heard that fig trees had sort of a pre-fruit, so it wasn't unreasonable to expect something, but I don't know if that's actually true or not. At any rate, the symbolic interpretation is still valid. (And, having been conquered by Rome, perhaps Israel was not in a season of fruit, either, strengthening the symbolic connection.)
It was produced by Jesus Christ at His resurrection. He left it for us to see and ensured that its being set aside was recorded in Scripture (not with the others but rolled up in a separate place - https://biblehub.com/john/20-7.htm).
If you mean "how did Jesus create the image"? Well, I don't know, we can look at the image (as some have) and come up with some theories. My favorite one is the one that says it was in the moment that the angel rolled the stone away from the tomb Jesus briefly shone with light, imprinting on the shroud the image of His suffering. That's certainly not the only way it could have happened, of course, but I think it's a very fitting image.
The point I was making there was in response to someone saying that "even if it's a shroud, how do we know it is Jesus's shroud and not some random 1st century burial shroud", and I was explaining that random 1st century burial shrouds obviously don't have images of the dead person on them.
you say "eh, it could be anybody's, everybody had a bible and lots of kids back then" and you throw it away.
you're right, no way to prove it was his and you can live your life unencumbered by the past, no point in looking for meaning.
The shroud showed up in France in the 1300s or 1400s; it's unclear exactly when, because it seems several shrouds were circulating at the same time. When written sources start talking about the current one, they don't say where it came crom. Nothing like "here's this shroud, taken by A from B, who had it after C, who found it raiding Byzantium, who got it from...". It just appears suddenly.
1. Your father got it from your granpa, who really liked to boast about family treasures and often made up stories about his parents and grandparents.
2. The bible clearly says "Printed in 1956" in the back matter.
But of course, you are free to believe whatever you want.
You say it I think sarcastically. I'm not sure.
But not spending a life going down rabbit holes that are most likely false, is not giving up on searching for meaning.
It is just switching to more fruitful avenues to spend the limited time we have on looking for meaning.
If something works for you, that’s great. But why do people automatically say that their way is better? Does being right really matter?
We could have a really great world if we’d just let people believe in whatever works for them.
However. It would not be a really great world without criticism. It would be a world even more full of conspiracy theories and wacky viral social media posts about the government engineering hurricanes or archeologists digging up giants. Being right matters because indulgently anti-reason people don't limit it to what "works" for them, they go around pressuring other people to be similarly stupid. By the way, what does "works" really mean here? It's something like a need to have non-critical thought processes. That's fine, I think, even vital, but only in private. Bring those weird-ass thought processes out into the light, and then they should be criticized, otherwise we're heading toward folie à deux territory.
It rests entirely on the premise that reason plays no role in the existence or structure of the universe. That, for no reason at all the big bang happened. Then also for no reason at all, the laws of physics permitted the formation of stars, planets, and so on. And then, also for no reason at all, some of that matter became alive. Of course we don’t really know how to define what life even is satisfactorily. And then, still for no reason at all, except apparently some built in drive to replicate (why? No reason of course) that life evolved over billions of years into something that fancies itself rational, for no reason at all.
It’s quite a puzzle!
This sounds like the 'no you' response.
You didn't make any point.
Just because there are open questions doesn't mean there is a god. There are unknowns -> ? -> Must be god.
All of the same arguments you made also apply to aliens.
Even if I were to follow your argument as "there are unknowns thus god", I'm pretty sure it isn't the Christian God. The god that can create the entire universe, focused down on a few lost tribes and said 'you guys are my dudes, and only you'.
I’m not pointing out open questions, I’m presenting offered answers. To the atheist that all these things happened for no reason at all isn’t an open question, it’s a definitively held belief.
> Just because there are open questions doesn't mean there is a god. There are unknowns -> ? -> Must be god.
> I were to follow your argument as "there are unknowns thus god
You are hallucinating an argument I never made. If you want to engage please address what I actually wrote. This has nothing to do with “god of the gaps” or any such thing. It’s simply highlighting the definitively held atheist belief that reason played no role in any of the given phenomena.
> All of the same arguments you made also apply to aliens.
This doesn’t make any sense. But sure an atheist might believe that alien life also evolved, once again, for no reason at all.
Or are you trying to propose something more sophisticated like that our reality is a simulation created by advanced aliens? Positing that our reality was created by an in some sense superior alien intelligence or intelligences does mean things didn’t happen for no reason at all.
It’s moderately interesting to compare simulationism with other intelligent design theories. I’m not going to do that here, but I will note that “supernatural” literally just means above nature, so vis a vis our perceived reality the creator or creators of the simulation would be supernatural beings. Similarly any admin actions they might take would be miraculous.
And this argument certainly sounds similar to the "God of the gaps" argument. Instead of "there are things science can't explain" it's more like "the scientific world view doesn't satisfy my gut feeling that things happen for reasons", but that's a similar kind of gap, just a more philosophical one.
The rationalist view says that there are reasons for why the universe exists, why stars and planets exist, why life exists, and why occasionally intelligent life such as ourselves exists. That there are atheists who still hold the rationalist position is unsurprising, since it’s quite common for people to hold unexamined contradictory beliefs.
Certainly you can get to the monotheistic God from there, but there are plenty of other alternatives that avoid the things happened for no reason at all problem, such as panpsychism just to name one.
That might be some sub-set of some narrow band of 'rationalist'. But it is not a common viewpoint of atheist. So guess your point, that atheist aren't rational, using a narrow definition of 'rational'
I'd say the more common view atheist is that there are no 'reasons'. It is all physical processes, with no 'reason' behind it at all. It's all just cause and effect, the billiard ball universe. Quarks/Electrons/atoms/molecules. All just interacting with no 'reason'.
I think the nature of this argument wasn't with this view of universe, it was with which people you were attributing that did believe this way.
That doesn’t sound like a rational position to me.
This seems more like category errors, or applying words from one level of meaning to another level.
If you are going to go go that far, then nothing even exists to discuss.
I guess, if by responding, you mean 'defensive'. Any counter point is a defense.
I think maybe unwittingly, or maybe on purpose sarcastically, you are just playing with words. And maybe I lost the thread of the point you were making.
You're entire paragraph was about 'reason', and how physics does not allow for 'reason', or explain reason, that nothing that happens is because of 'reason' and thus atheist are irrational because physics is not rational.
Maybe you are just making a little joke, that Atheist just believe in a physical world, and there is no 'reason' or intelligence behind it, it is just all cause and effect. That they are 'irrational' because they are in the universe and the universe is 'irrational'.
You basically just made a common argument for Intelligent Design/God/Simulation Theory(the alien), take your pick. That because we can't explain things inside the universe with 'reason', there must be some 'supernatural' level beyond our first order natural world, that would have reason. Something beyond our own that has reason, in order to create ours that does not have reason.
But really, on re-reading your argument, and response. I am not sure. I don't know any atheist that believe as you say they do. So it seemed like a straw man, you are projecting an atheist belief to knock it down. Just because they don't believe in a god, doesn't mean we wont be able to figure things out, to find the 'reason' for why things are the way they are.
It is very difficult when picking up an argument mid-stride with a stranger on the internet. I thought you were making an anti-atheist point, which sounded like Intelligent Design/God/Simulation Theory. But maybe you were just making some observation on how humans can't know, because if the universe is all determined, then they can't break free of that to observe it from the outside.
-> Maybe you were making a little joke, the physical/real world is irrational, atheist believe in only a physical/real universe, thus atheist are irrational.
If you want to re-state your original point, that would be good.
If you can get from deism, based on an argument about order, to belief in Jesus coming back to life and emitting radiation in the process, by a chain of reasoning, then more power to you. I can't imagine what the steps would be, but it's the kind of thing the Scholastics would have done.
All of the working definitions beg the question in some form or another. And then there's stuff like this[1].
> If you can get from deism, based on an argument about order, to belief in Jesus coming back to life and emitting radiation in the process, by a chain of reasoning, then more power to you.
I can't, and I don't think any reasonable person claims that you can. My view of Christianity is that it is, basically, Greek philosophical monotheism (I'd quibble over "deism," preferring something like "philosophical monism," but it's just a quibble) with some vestigial Hebrew trappings plus historical claims based on testimonial evidence. The resurrection falls squarely in the historical claims area. It's hard to overstate the influence of Greek culture and philosophy on the Mediterranean at the time of Jesus' ministry.
[1] https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/shape-is-not-enough-t...
What I was responding to was the sentiment of doubling down on mysticism. "My parents beliefs are my beliefs, and that is correct, and so that's what I'm going to believe, and then teach my kids". No opportunity to grow.
Was pointing out that, a lot of people really spend a lot of years going in weird directions, so why not pause, look around, and figure out a better way forward.
Really, this seems to be the kind of response I get when others want the "freedom means free as long as they agree with me". But suggest thinking differently, and boom, can't have that kind of stuff happening, "not that kind of freedom".
Like if someone was a Satan worshiper. And I suggested reading the bible. Then that is good, people should be free to suggest that, and to change.
But if someone is evangelical. And I suggest that Satan might have made some good points, or the Bible actually allows for abortion. Then boom, that isn't freedom, you are corrupting people, we have to stop that.
It does not prove anything either way with regard to it being genuine or not, as a later forger/artist would have followed that, but if it is shown to be a genuine shroud with genuine marks then it makes it probable it was Jesus's.