2 ms·

> Both believers and non-believers should agree on the scientific evidence about this particular object. Sure, you would want that, but what does the science a

> Both believers and non-believers should agree on the scientific evidence about this particular object. 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?

tsimionescu 2y ago
> Recent news stories are claiming that the shroud cloth may date back to the 1st century. 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.
- kcplate 2y ago
  > 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. 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?
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    > That’s circumstantial evidence, not scientific. 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.
    - kcplate 2y ago

tsimionescu 2y ago

> Recent news stories are claiming that the shroud cloth may date back to the 1st century. 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.

kcplate 2y ago
> 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. 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?
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  > That’s circumstantial evidence, not scientific. 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.
  - kcplate 2y ago