This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Turin Shroud resurrected

Turin Shroud resurrected - Comments

Jay G's Avatar Comment 1 by Jay G

We all know that if there were scientific proof that the story of Jesus was a total fabrication, Christianity would not suffer. It would only be made stronger because now people would KNOW that they are believing without evidence.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:23:02 UTC | #901626

Austin K's Avatar Comment 2 by Austin K

Can we get a link to the original article?

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:30:16 UTC | #901628

Moderator's Avatar Comment 3 by Moderator

There's a link in the first sentence, Austin - but this is the full url too: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8968276/Fake-or-not-the-Turin-Shroud-is-an-article-of-faith.html

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:31:49 UTC | #901629

Teknical's Avatar Comment 4 by Teknical

When facts get in the way of the truth just make up an alternative truth.

Another lost opportunity for the church to admit it's mistakes and look for the real evidence, if any exists at all.

Another nail is well and truely hammered in to the preverbial coffin every time these people openly lie through their teeth.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:33:20 UTC | #901630

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 5 by Ignorant Amos

I don’t believe in an old man in the sky with a long white beard.’ That old man is an irrelevant distraction and his beard is as tedious as it is long. Indeed, the distraction is worse than irrelevant. Its very silliness is calculated to distract attention from the fact that what the speaker really believes is not a whole lot less silly. I know you don’t believe in an old bearded man sitting on a cloud, so let’s not waste any more time on that. I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods.

The problem is, that's how the bible portrays God, it's how God has been perceived for millennia and it is how God is perceived by very many of the ignorant devout today. Yes, it really is silly, extremely ridiculous and just like all the other nonsense contained in the bible.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:36:57 UTC | #901631

brighterstill's Avatar Comment 6 by brighterstill

The God that Dawkins doesn’t believe in is a God that I don’t believe in either.

It was that line in the God Delusion which made me start paying rapt attention and that book which ultimately started the cascade toward my eventual atheism.

Many thanks Richard!

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:40:28 UTC | #901632

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 7 by SaganTheCat

a lot of comments stating 'no modern scientist' could do this blah blah...

of course the important question this raises is "if the turin shroud is genuine, can we now all agree the muslims are all wrong?"

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:41:49 UTC | #901633

sunbeamforjeebus's Avatar Comment 8 by sunbeamforjeebus

A salient, recent example of this sort of 'have your cake and eat it' thinking was Hitch's destruction of the Bishop of Abuja at the intelligence squared debate a couple of years ago.In spite of Christopher demolishing this man and his nonsense,the cleric stated with a straight face that 'the church must be allowed to write it's own dogma ! '' The implication is that evidence is of no importance to the tenets of the xtian faith,therefore they cannot be shaken by any scientific proof of their falsity. I and the rest of the audience scratched our heads, but basically concluded that the cleric actually believed it was acceptable to construct any bloody nonsense they wished and that we should be expected to treat it with a degree of seriousness and respect.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:45:43 UTC | #901636

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 9 by Steve Zara

From the article:

The researchers say that the shroud’s image of a bearded man must have been created by “some form of electromagnetic energy, such as a flash of light at short wavelength”.

This, even if true, is supposed to be evidence for a supernatural creator who sent his son to be crucified? What would god being doing with electromagnetic energy? Has there ever been an instance of electromagnetic energy being involved in resurrections?

For every imaginable miraculous event there is always a non-supernatural alternative which is infinitely less unlikely than the actions of a god. Off the top of my head, how about an alien culture taking some kind of photograph of a body through the shroud? No, I don't believe it myself, but given the supposed infinitude of god, it is infinitely more likely. Anything at all is more unlikely than theistic supernatural explanations. Anything.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:45:47 UTC | #901637

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 10 by Tyler Durden

The Daily Telegraph (Dec 20th) has an article by the Reverend Peter Mullen spurred by alleged recent evidence from Italy that the Turin shroud cannot be a fake.

I can just see Dan Brown cracking a smile while he starts his Chapter One of The Secret of the Shroud (due out in paperback April 1st 2012, and starring Tom Hanks, due for release December 26th 2012).

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:45:53 UTC | #901638

Saganic Rites's Avatar Comment 11 by Saganic Rites

Even the church knows that the old rag is a fake. I debunked it at school when I was 14, using no more than two cotton sheets, a volunteer and some felt pens.

Cloth (a) was draped over the face and allowed to fall naturally, then the areas where the face touched the cloth were marked. The result was a piece of cloth marked by the forehead, tip of nose, lips, chin and little else.

Cloth (b) was carefully pressed down into all of the contours of the face and all the details marked until the cloth had the appearance of a mask. However, when the cloth was lifted and straightened out, the image was too distorted be be recognisable as a face, never mind the face of a specific person.

Of course, my RE teacher was quick to inform me that the image was caused not by contact with the body, but by a blast of 'heavenly energy' emanating from it.

I do recall that after the carbon-14 testing showed the age of the cloth, the church declared that the tests were void as they had been taken from "areas of medieval repair".

'Tis all nought but smoke and mirrors.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:48:05 UTC | #901639

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 12 by Premiseless

What I have to ask myself is why, considering: the vast educational voids in the world this very second; amidst millions suffering malady, hungers and poverty; amongst peoples of thousands of different systems of belief, is it suddenly so important we all think a piece of centuries old linen to be of any particular merit?

And the resounding reply is always: emotional trauma will latch onto the hem of anyones garment. More is the evil of those pedaling it as if it has reward.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:52:23 UTC | #901640

Colin Coleman's Avatar Comment 13 by Colin Coleman

It seems to be a small step between believing something without evidence to believing something despite evidence to the contrary.

I find it impossible to imagine such a warped view of reality, but there are precedents, for example creationist scientists who privately believe the universe is only 6000 years old, yet happily write mathematical papers assuming that it is 14 billion years old.

There is precedent for most forms of aberrant behaviour in humans, but a scientist with such cynical disregard for truth does not merit the title.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:02:20 UTC | #901642

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 14 by Tyler Durden

The millions of pilgrims who make the journey to see the shroud in its climate-controlled case in Turin cathedral do not do so in the hope of some irrefutable proof of Christ’s resurrection. Why bother to make the visit, then? Because they are pilgrims. And a pilgrim is one who believes before he sets forth on his pilgrimage. The pilgrim does not make his in search of scientific evidence and the empirical proof of his faith. The point of his journey is precisely that faith is his motivation.

The very definition of an unthinking, willfully ignorant, closed mind.

Is it any wonder Richard et al have an issue with faith schools.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:02:30 UTC | #901643

hemidemisemigod's Avatar Comment 15 by hemidemisemigod

This story was also carried by the Daily Mail (don't ask me how I know this).

Scientists from Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development spent years trying to replicate the shroud’s markings.

They have concluded only something akin to ultraviolet lasers – far beyond the capability of medieval forgers – could have created them.

I hope these scientists also have day jobs.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:17:20 UTC | #901646

The Babel Fish's Avatar Comment 16 by The Babel Fish

What do you think of the theory that it was forged by Da Vinci, using certain photographic 'precursor' chemicals (I think silver nitrate may have been mentioned), a model and a camera obscurer? It would explain the apparant penetration of the 'pigment' into the cloth, and you can never bet against Da Vinci having worked something out ahead of his time. His hang glider design worked when they built it for a TV show a few years ago.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:19:35 UTC | #901647

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 17 by Cartomancer

Why do they even bother with the carbon dating? Surely to goodness it is enough to note that the face on the shroud looks nothing like a real human face and everything like a thirteenth-fourteenth century painting of a face. The proportions are all wrong for a real human face, and utterly consistent with artistic depictions from the central Middle Ages. Why is that not considered evidence enough? Or do we now have to suspend disbelief that the Bayeux Tapestry was an early form of photography, or that the figures on Chartres Cathedral are real people petrified by the magical gaze of a gorgon or a cockatrice?

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:21:22 UTC | #901648

some asshole's Avatar Comment 18 by some asshole

You have to love it. If the science happened to back the shroud's authenticity, they would be screaming it from the rooftops until they bled from their mouths. But the science, of course, shows that it's just a large piece of moderately old toilet paper, so they refute the science. There is no point engaging with people of this type.

And, of course, any scientifically competent person claiming its authenticity is banking on it drawing a huge stream of touri$t$.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:29:49 UTC | #901651

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 19 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 17 by Cartomancer

Or a 33 year old Medieval European with a terribly hard paper round.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:33:22 UTC | #901652

thebaldgit's Avatar Comment 20 by thebaldgit

Who would have thought claims of the validity of the Turin shroud just in time for xmas? bullshit pure and simple and obviously fills the need to get more people to pay to see it.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:35:57 UTC | #901655

DavidMcC's Avatar Comment 21 by DavidMcC

Comment 16 by The Babel Fish :

What do you think of the theory that it was forged by Da Vinci, using certain photographic 'precursor' chemicals (I think silver nitrate may have been mentioned), a model and a camera obscurer? It would explain the apparant penetration of the 'pigment' into the cloth, and you can never bet against Da Vinci having worked something out ahead of his time.

I saw that program, too, Babel. It was quite a wheeze by the maestro,wasn't it! I imagine he understood the issue raised by Cartomancer, above, but thought it better to make a face that looked right to the "average Joe" of the time than one that would be credible to scientists, centuries later.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:43:11 UTC | #901657

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 22 by Stafford Gordon

The main safeguard for religion is that it's impossible to prove a negative.

So, even if Jesus never existed the faithful can carry on imagining what ever they want.

But what would happen if remains were found? What would the genome be like? After all, he had only one earthly parent!

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:51:31 UTC | #901660

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 23 by Schrodinger's Cat

I was under the impression, whether the claim is true or not, that the pieces tested were later alleged to have come not from the 'original' shroud but from backing material placed on it after some fire that occured.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:52:31 UTC | #901661

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 24 by Schrodinger's Cat

Comment 17 by Cartomancer

Why do they even bother with the carbon dating?

Well, ironically, the single biggest piece of evidence that the shroud is not genuine comes from the Bible itself. Either one takes the Bible as the absolute, inerrant, word of God in which case Jesus was buried using three seperate cloths, or one takes the shroud as genuine in which case the Bible account is wrong.

It is not logically possible to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible AND believe the shroud is genuine.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:58:18 UTC | #901663

Marc Country's Avatar Comment 25 by Marc Country

Linen is photosensitive. Case closed.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:59:40 UTC | #901665

RichardofYork's Avatar Comment 26 by RichardofYork

Wrapping a cloth round a cylinder sort of shape doesn't leave a cylinder shape imprint on the cloth , the head portion would be flattened out , ridiculously obvious

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:00:22 UTC | #901667

Metamag's Avatar Comment 27 by Metamag

Comment 1 by Jay G :

We all know that if there were scientific proof that the story of Jesus was a total fabrication, Christianity would not suffer. It would only be made stronger because now people would KNOW that they are believing without evidence.

I thought we already have such proof from many different scientific disciplines..

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:03:37 UTC | #901669

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 28 by Steve Zara

comment 22 by Stafford Gordon

The main safeguard for religion is that it's impossible to prove a negative.

I don't know why this myth has persisted - perhaps because the religious think it is a safeguard.

It's easy to prove negatives. We do it all the time. Is there milk left in my fridge? No. Time to get more. The negative statement "no milk is left in my fridge" is proven.

The only reason why the idea that it is impossible to prove a negative turns up in discussions of religion is that the concept of god has become the ultimate chamaeleon, hiding wherever we haven't managed to look yet: beyond time, beyond space, beneath the quantum. I'm surprised that no believer has yet come up with the idea that god lives in black holes: that would be a neat place to skulk.

It's fair to say that if an argument has got to the stage where it is beyond negative proof, then it's beyond credibility.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:08:55 UTC | #901671

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 29 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 16 by The Babel Fish

I've seen a number of the debunking the shroud programmes including the DaVinci theory one. If memory serves, they compared the face on the shroud with a self portrait of Leonardo and the Mona Lisa....the dimensions and resemblance where too close for comfort.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:11:43 UTC | #901672

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 30 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 28 by Steve Zara

I'm surprised that no believer has yet come up with the idea that god lives in black holes: that would be a neat place to skulk.

Too late Steve.....loads already have, here's an example.

Heaven, Hell, and judgment When a person dies, his/her soul/spirit exits this space-time world by crossing the event horizon of death. This is the boundary at which space and time end and timelessness begins. In the Bible, God tells us that beyond death there are Heaven, Hell, and judgment to come (‘it is appointed unto man once to die, but after this the judgment’—Hebrews 9:27). The latter decides which of the two former we end up in, based on our faith (in this life) in Christ’s atoning death and resurrection.

Heaven, Hell, and the final judgment all exist or occur within the dimensions of eternity. They can therefore never be examined by science, because they are all hidden behind an event horizon (see Extra dimensions and God—a caution).4 This, however, does not mean that they are not real. The concept is perfectly scientific, and they are in fact the ultimate reality. The materialistic credo propounded for so long by atheists, that the ‘here and now’ of our space-time continuum is the only reality, is thus seen to be scientifically unsound. Skeptics, atheists, and others ignore this at their peril.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:19:46 UTC | #901673