In an hour or two we’re leaving on the road trip I mentioned in my last post. In spite of the consequent mayhem that surrounds me as I write, I felt that I had to publish the news from Italy that the Turin Shroud could not possibly be a mediaeval forgery. The latest scientific study indicates that the image on the shroud was caused by some flash of electronmagnetic energy unknown in mediaeval times and impossible to replicate in a laboratory. No doubt, those who worship the physical sciences as the only truth will find it very embarrassing that true science seems to be vindicating true religion. Here’s the link to the news story:
Tom R, the shroud is not required belief, so whether you believe it or not, that is up to you. But as for the study of the Shroud itself, you make what is very much an open debate out to be a closed deal, which it is not.
And as for that scientist, while McCrone may be honest, I will never fault those who are angered, can you blame them? We live in a world where Christianity is constantly mocked and degraded, with people every year coming up with new, even more outrageous claims to disprove Christianity. If believers are a little testy at times, I hope you may understand why. I also should note that I am not one of them, hence my name, I am a recent convert.
If one carefully reads the original paper by Walter McCrone on this piece, he finds that
a) It is consistent with a medieval painting technique.
b) that McCrone was able to reproduce the type of stain.
c) Dating of a piece of cloth (after McCrone’s work was completed (after he died, I think) is consistent with McCrone’s analysis. The disputes of this dating rest on the claim of contaminated sampling. However, this claim doesn’t stand up to the scrutiny of the original work, and the fact that three separate samples provided the same result, within experimental error.
I am a Catholic, and to me, the shroud is a fake. It proves (or disproves) absolutely nothing. What really bothers me about publications like this one is the villification of an innocent man, McCrone, that has occurred since his publication. Just because he’s not a Catholic, he has been pilloried by “believers” because he honestly published his findings for peer review.
Experimental details on the tests carried out by McCrone are available in five papers published in three different peer-reviewed journal articles: The Microscope 28, p. 105, 115 (1980); The Microscope 29, p. 19 (1981); Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77-83.
At no point in his work did McCrone claim that he disproved the existence of Jesus or his divinity – just that the shroud was a piece of artwork. He deserves the respect accorded to serious scientists, and not ridicule.
You may review his web-site at:
http://www.mcri.org/home/section/63-64/the-shroud-of-turin
If you disagree with his conclusions, fine, but I don’t, and it doesn’t make me a co-conspirator with evil, or any less Catholic because I don’t believe the shroud is real.
@ Tom R.
This sort of fuss always causes me to look at motivations. What is the motivation of someone who is not a Christian to devote so much time and labor to disproving the authenticity of the Shroud?
Secondly, what is the motivation of someone who says he’s Catholic to put “believers” in pejorative punctuation? Or to use the term “villification (sic) of an innocent man” to refer to a disagreement with one party’s findings? Nobody attacked McCrone here.
The reasons given by the team of researchers for concluding that the Shroud is a product of the Middle Ages (apart from this dispute over the nature of the stain) have long since been shown (by other scientists) to be unreliable–fibers woven into the fabric existed only in the area of Judea at the time of Christ, and the method of carbon dating which the researchers employed is faulty. (By the method they chose, all dating of fossils would be put in doubt, so it’s vital to their credibility that their method be insisted upon as a priori. Only when this method was questioned by other scientists did they claim that their pieces were too small to test accurately.)
Without itemizing and evaluating all the pros and cons, which would take much more space than a combox allows, the evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity far outweighs the evidence against it.
It is only because its authenticity cannot be scientifically proven absolutely, beyond any doubt at all, that the disbelievers refuse to accept it as authentic. If it were not for the implication that would necessarily follow, it would not be doubted at all–not even by scientists themselves–due to the mere weight of the evidence in favor of it. What is the motivation behind the apparent intense need to disprove it?
@Recent Convert
You raise such a good point. But I’d go a step further by looking at this question of motivation: As you say, the Church does not require us to believe in the Shroud. It’s not some article of faith. Why do you suppose it’s so necessary for some people to disprove it, and to disprove Christianity, especially in such terms which, as you say, mock and degrade the faithful as well as the faith itself. Why is there such an animus? And more important, why is it not just from those who identify themselves as non-believers, but also from those who identify themselves as believers–yet who condemn anyone who dares to defend the faith? The first group’s hatred is far less sinister because it is overt, even if the motivation is hidden, but the second group–I think we’d have to wonder why they always insist on wearing sheep’s clothing.
I put “believers” in quotes, because I’m referring to those who don’t act in a charitable manner, not because I’m referring to Catholics in general. I will allow that I was being hyper sensitive, however. It is true that nothing in Pearce’s article attacked McCrone. However, a quick Google search will reveal attacks upon this man, his work, and his character because of his publications. Thus, the use of the term “villification.” Again, you are correct that I was inflammatory in the nature of my response, and I apologize for that.
I am a PhD chemist (MIT, 1978), and I still believe that McCrone’s original article is sufficient, in and of itself (even without the radiocarbon dating), to define the shroud as a medieval artwork. You disagree, and I’m fine with that, but, as a scientist, I have to ask critical questions. The main attack on the evidence that the shroud is an artwork is the presumed flawed nature of the radiocarbon dating sample. Now, this is easily resolved by taking another sample, yet I doubt you will ever see this happen. If it does, I’m willing to be a substantial sum that the same date will be produced.
I would love to believe (and McCrone wanted to believe as well) that the shroud is real. God has given me an intellect that tells me it is not. I would not be faithful to the truth, or to Him, if I just said, “I want it to be real, it would make a great relic, so it must be!” That would defy the conscience and reason that God Himself gave me.
The Catholic church is under extraordinary attack by non-believers, and my concern is that, when the shroud is finally shown for what it is (and I believe it will be), it will be ammunition for non-believers to say, “See, the church is just full of it.” There is a faithful reason for my strong stance on this issue, whether you choose to see it or not.
I hold you in no disrespect for your belief that,”Without itemizing and evaluating all the pros and cons, which would take much more space than a combox allows, the evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity far outweighs the evidence against it.” It is absolutely true that we could fill a website with the pro and con arguments, and that would be waste of time.
All I’m asking is that you provide those of us who disagree the same respect. Is that too much to ask?
Dear Tom R.,
We shouldn’t form judgments on the truth of things based on how it makes the Church look to her attackers. It wouldn’t work, anyway.
In any case, what the evidence does show is that “believers” may or may not be charitable, just as they may or may not be Catholic. Let’s extend this further to include believers in the authenticity of the Shroud, shall we?