2 ms·

> 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 ev

> 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
  > But the Church and some others didn't like the answer 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.

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
> But the Church and some others didn't like the answer 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.