Have mythbusters proven the Turin Shroud is fake?
If you were brought up a Catholic, as a child, you were taught about the power of mysteries.
One mystery that I used to always find perplexing was how the face of Jesus Christ was superimposed on the Turin Shroud, a burial cloth that measures 14 feet, 4 inches by 3 feet, 7 inches.
Somehow, the face looked a little too much like the Jesus in all the religious pictures. It all seemed a little too perfect. And, as one grew up, one began to learn that nothing was quite that perfect. Not even priests.
Now an Italian scientist and his team claim to have debunked this mystery.
According to Reuters, an organic chemist from the University of Pavia called Luigi Garlaschelli has created a shroud replica and plans to reveal the results of his work at a conference on the paranormal (and, who knows, of the paranormal) later this week.
In order not to cheat, Garlaschelli says he availed himself only of materials that were accessible in the Middle Ages, the period from which carbon dating by various laboratories suggested the shroud emanates.
He and his team used a pigment that contained a little skeptical acid to do the basic rubbing on a volunteer wearing a Jesus mask.
Then, in a process that seems to eerily resemble the production of faded clothing by teenagers, they heated the shroud in an oven and washed it. Finally, they added a few holes and stains for additional authenticity.
It all sounds suspiciously easy. Indeed, it all sounds as if someone wants to create a little anti-Catholic publicity. (The Church doesn't even claim that the Turin Shroud is genuine.) As with so much research these days, it is good to look to the source of funding to see who might be so very keen to bankroll a debunking.
Garlaschelli admits that he did take money from an Italian association of atheists and agnostics. However, he has offered his services to the Church too. "Money has no odor," was his somewhat-romantic quote to Reuters.
But something about this experiment does suggest a peculiar smell. The University of Pavia is one of the oldest in Europe. Don't the professors have something a little more interesting to do than trying to upset my mum and dad?
Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. 
You should do a dictionary search on the word 'faith'.... and then maybe a bit more research on its usage in religious context. To spoil it a bit.... a good synonym for faith is trust. Trust could, of course, have no foundation or be based on 'wishful thinking', but that would be a foolish trust or faith. True faith IS based on evidence, so the idea that evidence isn't necessary is simply a common misconception based on ignorance.
Where faith does begin to move away from what one might call 'scientific empirical evidence' is in that there is more involved than what could be put into a test-tube. This is quite true of MOST other areas of our life where faith/trust is also involved. When I get on an airplane, I can't test that situation in the lab first, I have to base my faith/trust that I'll get to my destination alive on historical data. When I trust that my wife loves me, I'm also basing that on our relationship and a history of actions. Some things, I can test in the lab... but that is yet another or different kind of evidence.
I've written a bit more on this if you are intersted, at: http://www.cgWerks.com/apologetics/
(sorry, there isn't much there yet other than what I've written on faith... more coming soon hopefully)
On the Shroud, as Chris (the author) mentioned in the article, many Christians DO NOT believe it to be authentic. I mention this, because it kind of proves my above point about faith and evidence. We Christians DO NOT simply take anything and everything on 'faith'. The Christian faith has a long history of extensive research into history and evidence. That history includes many of the top thinkers throughout history in just about every discipline (including science).... and still does.
Well, that's not really what we believe... it's a horribly poor summary of Christian belief....
But no, you're silly because you seem to have not thought this stuff through very much. Sure, if people were to just simply 'believe' all the things in a religion, adding the Shroud isn't such a big step. That kind of misses my point though. Christians (at least smart ones) take each of these kinds of things on a case by case basis.
If they want to prove a point, they should use their money to help cure cancer, or feed starving children, to show that humanitarian acts of kindness are not linked to a person's faith. Instead, they show the darkness of their hearts by providing money to try to bring others down.
I turn your question around. Why don't churches spend their money on curing cancer or feeding starving children instead of opposing gay marriage and all the other things that aren't any of their business?
Because gay marriage is the single biggest threat to our society. Don't you know anything?
;-) Just kidding. I loved your question.
I'm neither religious, nor gay. What always gets me about the anti-gay efforts is that I see those involved as expending time, money, and effort basically for the sole purpose of inflicting pain (or at least denying some measure of happiness) to other human beings. Anyone who goes out of their way to do such a thing to someone else is a jackass in my book, regardless of what justification they say they have or what label they want to apply to themselves.
Secular Humanists take so much regular abuse from all branches of religion that your point of religious intolerance is ludicrous. Yes, there is a lot of religious intolerance, and it comes mainly from religious fundamentalists.
"Darkness of their hearts", indeed. How about building hospitals instead of 'houses of worship'?
Troll.
In this video of a presentation made at TED, Richard Dawkins, a noted atheist, makes a plea for militancy by atheists confronting religious beliefs and for the wealthy among his audience to support this. This is intolerance by militant activism.
I am not supporting either position but noting that such links exist.
It is worth noting that Dawkins, himself, is a promoter of Russell's Teapot like beliefs with his work on 'memes'. Flying spaghetti monsters take many forms and concepts such as memes fall into that trap.
As walkerrussellc just noted.... Churches DO expend huge amounts of effort and financial resources to things like helping the poor, feeding the hungry, etc. In fact, I saw a study a couple years back which showed that the typical evangelical Christian gives several times the average to these kind of charities BEYOND what they already give to their churches (which also often support these kind of charities). Christians are far from perfect (in fact their doctrine states this quite bluntly), but please at least get your facts straight before making statements like you did.
Second, while there are many Christians confused about why they might oppose same-sex marriage (in a similar way you seem confused about Christians and what they do an believe)... ie: they don't fully understand the issue or state their opposition in an clear manner.... and yes, there are some Christians acting in quite un-Christian ways towards same-sex couples. However, the issue is ABSOLUTELY their business. Remember, Christians ultimately aren't the aggressors here. The aggressors are a minority group of people, seeking to FORCE the majority to accept their viewpoint and to change foundational definitions of human society in order to do so.
Where faith does begin to move away from what one might call 'scientific empirical evidence' is in that there is more involved than what could be put into a test-tube.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by SteveW928 October 6, 2009 2:42 PM PDT
.... and yes, there are some Christians acting in quite un-Christian ways towards same-sex couples. However, the issue is ABSOLUTELY their business. Remember, Christians ultimately aren't the aggressors here. The aggressors are a minority group of people, seeking to FORCE the majority to accept their viewpoint and to change foundational definitions of human society in order to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm constantly amazed at the mental gymnastics you religious freaks will do to make yourselves feel "right". The only real difference between Christians, Satanists and Muslims is the fact that only one of the three hasn't been demonized in the American media.
I'll be more than happy to discuss my 'mental gymnastics' if you give me a bit more to go on than Ad hominem attacks (Google that if you don't know what it means).
So, do you have something I said that you can disagree with in some manner of thoughtfulness?
And, while I realize it was simply part of your un-thought-through Ad hominem... there is actually quite a bit of difference between those three if you've done any academic study of world religions.
Slapped by the strong hand of irony.
Pathetic.
I think the point of this article was that instead of enlightening, it seems more an attempt to create fodder for the next History Channel special. It isn't like MANY scientific tests on the Shroud have not already been done. What this person did doesn't really prove much of anything. That said, I tend to think the Shroud is not authentic as well.... I just don't see the point of the experiment.
re: Santa Claus... even if you're using this as an analogy for the Shroud, it isn't a very good one. Reasonable historical inquiry would indicate there was a shroud, the question is if this is the real one or not. If you're using it to imply it is analogous to Christianity, you apparently don't have a good grasp on what analogy is.
the shroud itself is a bundle of mysteries. The style of the weaving, folding & water damage is consistant with the location & time period it would have been made - isreal around the time of the crucifixion (say, 33AD). The other markings (fire 7 silver from the casing that melted) are medieval, along with repair work (stitching or weaving & painting to touch up the image for preservation).
They also noticed a coin placed in the eye, and they can barely make out the markings, but they recokin that fits the time period for cruicifixion, as well as imprints from the herbs & spices used for embalming., which can only be found in the middle east.
Plus, I'll need to check up on this - the blood stains match the blood type (AB Positive?) found in other garments & also the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano italy.
& anyway, even though it CAN be faked, doesnt prove it may be a fake. remember Moses contest & the egyptian magicians. They coudl repicate some of the plagues & feats he done too. For every genuine article, there is a counterfiet.
Your last point was a good one... that someone could make a fake proves little to nothing about the original. This seems to be more History Channel fodder than anything.
That said, even as a Christian, I'd put VERY LITTLE emphasis on this. We've got much better evidence than chasing down stuff like this. It is interesting stuff, but certainly not central to the line of Christian evidence. (ie: whether it could be proven to be an obvious fake, or have come from the proper time and place does little for the case of evidence). It could have significance as a genuine relic... but that is fairly bad (and dangerous to) Christianity anyway.
It's not impossible for someone in the 13th century (which is when the Shroud first enters the historical record) to have taken a cloth 1200 years old and placed the image we now see upon it. Just because the cloth is the correct age doesn't mean the image dates from the same time.
The authenticity of this artifact neither proves nor disproves the resurrection, only that this shroud is likely from the Middle Ages.
Please see my post near up near the beginning before you make these uninformed remarks. That is absolutely NOT what faith is, nor how any good church teaches.
PS. I have no faith but I also do not hate those who do.
"True faith is not held in the item but in the heart." & "PS. I have no faith..."
Nor a grasp of what it is to begin with, it would seem. See my post near the top on the matter. I'll bet you do actually have faith, but we couldn't really discuss it until you get your definitions down.
"I hate people who think you should have the same faith as they do because they're just right."
Me too!
Well, the article does involve both science and religion......
It is interesting to note the initial responses... who they came from... and their intellectual rigor (or better, lack thereof). Kind of like calling the kettle black?
The problem is less belief, since by nature we believe in something, even if that belief is in a lack of something. The problem is our desire to instead of putting our beliefs in concert with each other, and trying to discern reasonable and deep beliefs, we instead beat each other over the head with our metaphysical understanding that we gleaned from TV, the back of cereal boxes, and our own ignorance and preference (combine that with a potential love or hate for Apple and it gets really messy).
Ultimately I should be able to talk to you about my faith, I shouldn't have to stay in the closet about it. But you shouldn't have to fear that I'm going to try to denigrate you in any way because of your faith. Personally I have a deep connection with God, sometimes I have trouble even liking Him, but I'm entirely aware He exists and whether I feel it at the time I know He cares for me more than I could understand. I should be able to talk about that with you without being afraid that you're going to reject me because of that.
I don't understand why it seems sometimes the only people you can have a respectful conversation about faith with, are either people who have studied it in higher education, or people who just don't care that much about it. You would think that anyone who's actually worked out their own faith or lack there of would have respect for people who have come to different conclusions.
If you spend even one minute of the rest of your life feeling bad about your sexuality, please treat yourself to the book "God Is Not Great - How Religion Poisons Everything." It will explain why we were raised to be ashamed of who we are, of sex straight or gay, of not being subservient enough, etc. It will explain why religion has done more harm (the things we have done for our gods) than good.
Excellent and insightful response! (one of the first so far, unfortunately)
I think there are two major causes of the problem you're talking about.
First, as you hinted at, that people are so utterly uninformed about both religion and science. Both sides seem to just throw slogans back and fourth at each other, liking to just belong to their particular 'club'. The same is mostly true of the Apple/PC debates so common here. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, "... either people who have studied it in higher education, or people who just don't care that much about it" People who have studied it generally have enough respect, even when they disagree. People who don't care, don't care. :) It's the people who do care, but don't want to put in the actual effort to be informed on the things they care about that are the problem. Those people don't make much sense to me either, but there are a LOT of them it seems. (I think a lot of that has to do with the level of prosperity we live in... we're largely sheltered from facing reality... and quite distracted from really living life).
Second, I think the huge mix of cultures, religions, etc. in North America has people on edge that the experiment will break down. Remember the common saying... Don't talk about politics or religion. The reason is that while people often joke about these things, they do ultimately matter and no matter how far down we try to push it, we know it. Politics is the easy example. It might be a joke, but that joke is going to effect people's lives.
"Good old protestant guilt about just about everything."
Huh? What kind of church did you go to?
"I resisted Evolution for a long time because they cannot both be right."
It depends on your definition of evolution. Naturalistic evolution, of course they both couldn't be right. Otherwise, they certainly both could be right. The evolution that is scientifically proven is quite compatibly with Christianity. It is the world-view conclusion some evolutionists have come to (which isn't proven by any stretch of the imagination) that is incompatible. Again, what kind of church did you go to?
"There is no way the people who wrote the Bible knew enough to use metaphors."
Can you explain what you mean by this? They obviously knew how to write in metaphors. Accidental metaphors?
"But the scientific process is pretty well sorted out."
Yea, I'd agree the scientific process seems to be working quite well. However, do you realize the process is a matter of philosophy and not science? Have you ever considered why the process works reliably? How do we know we can trust it?
"... please treat yourself to the book 'God Is Not Great'..."
And then also treat yourself to one of his debates with a descent Christian apologist or a critique of his book by a Christian apologist. Hitchens isn't all that hard to refute... his arguments are pretty basic. He is good at rhetoric, knowing how to play a crowd, and knowing how to keep a debate off-topic on stuff he can't deal with. If you're really serious about arguments against theism, you're much better off going back several decades or more to some of earlier atheists. Hitches, Dawkins, etc. play off ignorance and emotion more than good arguments.
Order and Information are two different things.
"abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc abc"
"on friday i am going to meet my wife in the park early in the afternoon"
Can you tell me what the difference between the two lines above is, considering we would know they were both composed of the same 27 character symbol set)?
We know what the Shroud Images are made from. In selective places, an otherwise clear layer of starch fractions and saccharides, a mere 200 to 600 nanometers thick, as thin as the wall of a soap bubble, has undergone a chemical change into a caramel colored substance. Spectral and chemical analysis reveal that the chromophores of the Shroud of Turin's images are complex, conjugated carbon bonds.
Another important fact is that the carbohydrate coating can be removed by reducing it with diimide or by pulling it away with adhesive tape.
Scientist have a pretty good idea about how the the coating got there. It was left behind via evaporation when the cloth was first made. New flax linen was starched then washed with suds from the soapwort plant. After rinsing it was air dried and any remaining starch and sugars from the soap would be deposited on the outer layers of fibers though evaporation.
The question is "how did the image for on this layer?" A question NOT answered by Garlaschelli.
Just a question.... why do you think these 'factions' (I assume you're taking about Christians) would want to dupe and coerce you into following their ways?
Just FYI... unless they are a televangelist or some kind of cult leader, there is really nothing to gain in Christianity by gaining a convert. Christians simply believe they have something pretty critical to share (news) which will benefit you. The ONLY reason in Christian doctrine to share the news is because Jesus gave it as a command to be done out of care for someone. They don't gain 'brownie' points, or financially benefit, etc. So, I'm not sure why anyone would want to dupe you or coerce you, etc. If they do, they are not good Christians, nor are they following Christian doctrine. Coercion or duping would actually be AGAINST Christian doctrine, and ultimately pointless.
Religious people around the world always need to have a supreme being to explain all they they are unable to explain. It doesn't matter if it is a primitive people who believe in a sun god, a moon god, a rain god, etc, or more formalized religions with a jesus, an allah, a whomever. How many wars and fights have been over one god vs the other? How many maniacal militarists have quoted scriptures as they blew up their enemy in the name of THEIR god.
Religion is hooey. It is the manmade crutch that gives solace to the weak who can't accept the reality. Why are so many "born agains" former junkies, hookers, thieves, etc? They hit bottom and needed a crutch. The "rational" explanation will be that they for god. MY explanation is that they found a crutch because they were too weak to face their own shortcomings.
One day we'll all die and find out the real truth. WE'LL BE DEAD! Period.
And BTW, I know exactly what I didn't capitalize. Commercial religions capitalize on them for their own profit.
re: prayer
Your explanation is just far to simplistic to really address. Only a super-naive Christian would try to explain it that way. I'm not denying you've heard something like that before.... but I also won't deny there are super-naive Christians. I could find some super-naive atheists / agnostics to try and make my points as well. It's called a straw-man argument, BTW.
re: explanations for natural phenomena
Sure, there have been plenty of religions that have done this... and most of them have gone the way of the dodo. I'm not sure how you have lumped Christianity and Islam into this... neither of these religions do much of this... unless you're speaking broadly of the idea of God (as an explanation of things). On that point, not only is the atheist in the VAST minority of people as far as human experience goes (not just as an attempt to try and explain something), but there are serious arguments by serious people that you are simply trying to just dismiss. For example, Alvin Plantinga's "Evolutionary argument against naturalism" or the Kal?m cosmological argument, or morality, or the Anthropic Principle, or design/information, etc. If you have good arguments against these, then hey, more power to you! If not, you might want to think again, and do a bit of investigation for yourself.
re: war
Well, I'm not going to try and deny your accusation. It's quite true. HOWEVER, Christian doctrine would expect this to happen, because it teaches the sinfulness of humanity. Christian doctrine also teaches against murder and un-justified war (and some would say against war all-together). I also submit the fact that more people have been killed by non-religious regimes, though I'll not hold that against the atheist.... but in that worldview, it does take some explaining.... and makes the point that this kind of behavior can be completely independent of one's religious perspective.
re: crutch
So, can I just state, 'atheism is hooey' and it will be so? ;o) As for the crutch thing... what you need to be able to explain is the the other side of the spectrum. What about people who haven't 'hit bottom' (at least not in the way you're speaking of... theologically, every Christian has realized they are at the bottom, no matter how life is going... and need a savior... but that's a whole different point)? What about the fact that most of the best and brightest people throughout history have been religious... many of them Christians.
re: "One day we'll all die and find out the real truth."
I can't agree more on this point. I hope you're confident you've put the actual work into thinking this all through. In reading your post, I'd guess you haven't. If you can say you think I have a crutch, may I suggest it seems you have your head in the sand? This stuff is too important to just blow off with slogans or blindly following pop-culture. Think it through for yourself a bit.
Very man smart religious people understand the same thing irreligious people understand. There is no explanation for many things that happen in the world. At last, not that we understand. Have you heard of the butterfly effect? A butterfly flaps its wings in Argentina and in Florida there's a hurricane. We don't understand why someone gets cancer, because we can't possibly understand how every single cell in our bodies interacts with the world around it.
I don't know is something an honest religious person can say as well as a scientist. We have that in common. All the rest is simply each working out for himself or herself the real meaning of life.
To make the blanket statements about religion or non-believeers here only show there is intolerance and ignorance on both sides. There has been horrible abuse by the church over the years. But to single out Christians as a worse example than any other religion, or atheism is nonsense. And there are plenty of non-religous people who perpetrate just as bad or worse crimes against humanity than any religion ever did. For example, Stalin. And then there's Chairman Mao who is responsible for the death of at least 75 million of his own people - and Communist China could hardly be called religious. That's not to say the Catholic church doesn't have a lot to answer for (can you say Spanish Inquisition? "No one expects the Spanish Inqui.... sorry, had a Monty Python moment there.) The real motivation to perpetrate evil is greed. Greed for power, money, sex, revenge, etc. And ALL people fall to those temptations. Not just religious people. Religious people betray their own beliefs when they fall victim to those character flaws.
In the end, intolerance from the Likes of Dawkins and Hitches is just as bad as the intolerance from the pastor from Kansas who takes his followers to picket the funerals of prominent gay people with signs that say "God hates ****..." or Jerry Falwell and his hatred for anything not in line with his own intolerant bigotry. But those failings are everywhere in the world.
As for the Shroud of Turin, Catholicism is only one part of Christianity, and they certainly don't speak for the rest. Nor does Dawkins or Hitchens for reasonable atheists or agnostics.
Another case of physics: According to the law of Conservation of Energy the universe couldn't have just spontaneously come about unless there was some force that can defy the laws of physics like God.
Also its not unprecedented for things to defy physics, look at the Bumble Bee according to all the laws of physics it can't fly, but yet you can see it flying.
Conservation of Energy is tricky at the quantum level, which provides the out for a universe to spontaneously spring into existence. Still theoretical, however, there is intriguing astronomical observations that may provide actual physical evidence this type of phenomenology. If God does exist, and is responsible for the creation of this universe, it may actually be much more indirect than anyone has contemplated yet.
"Still theoretical, however, there is intriguing astronomical observations that may provide actual physical evidence this type of phenomenology."
I'd be interested in this if you have links, etc. Are you talking about string theory? As far as I know, all the proposed other solutions are more in the 'thought experiment' type range, but practically impossible in the universe we're part of. (Theoretically possible for some other universe, but not for this one).
- by Hunnter2k3 October 6, 2009 1:10 PM PDT
- @StevieD377
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (109 Comments)Yeah, those "forces" are collisions, nothing but trillions and trillions of collisions.
Be it collisions between atoms, or extreme temperatures from volcanoes, asteroids, lightning, etc.
There is absolutely no need for any god in this.
A star explodes, clumps of matter fell together to form our sun.
More clumps banged together to create planets close and far away, the rest settles in the middle (gas giants)
After the collisions calmed down a little, already there were the basic building blocks through all the collisions that formed Earth.
This continues on all the way till now.