Shroud of Turin 2025 - International Conference & Symposium (St. Louis, Mo

Faith & Science Conversation
81

Not necessarily. There’s plenty of examples where there’s more than enough reasons to believe something is true/real/authentic, and yet many people will deny that’s the case. I don’t want to get political, but the only and most obvious example of this that springs to my mind at this moment is anti vax movement. Oh, and the Flat Earth community, obviously :upside_down_face:

1 Like
82

But anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers aren’t typically referred to as non-believers.

83

I have heard of “round earthers” being called non-believers :upside_down_face:
Ok, so perhaps I have given a bit too extreme examples
But we sometimes call atheists non-believers, and yet this doesn’t indicate that as Christians we don’t think there are genuine reasons to have faith*.
So let’s rephrase what you said above:

If you had any genuine reasons to consider Christianity to be real, you wouldn’t need to classify atheists as “non-believers”

The bottom line is that the term “non-believer” can simply be a phrase

*I hope you find this example a bit more paletable :blush:

1 Like
84

There are also times to embrace the breadth of human experience which includes faith and subjectivity in addition to the objectivity we embrace in logic and science. I think this is especially true on subjects that don’t have practical impacts on human society. Obviously, anti-vax positions can literally put peoples’ lives at risk, but who is being hurt by people who believe or don’t believe the Shroud of Turin is authentic? I would argue no one (as long as we act like responsible adults).

I think we also need to be careful not to fall into the black hole of always needing to be right. There needs to be some space for differing opinions, and the opportunity for people to just be wrong (including ourselves) and us being ok with it.

2 Likes
85

Dear Terry Sampson, I am the researcher who wrote the article about the projection of the body on the shroud. Although ChaGPT is a valuable tool for summarizing academic content, I would advise you to read the material in full and carefully. I am familiar with a series of previous studies, but my approach is well defined in the work and relates to the structure that created that impression. I recommend that you also read carefully the region of the article that addresses the issue of tomb art, in addition to onserve that the issue that brush painting is not the only way to print a structure on the fabric. Best regards!

2 Likes
86

I see that this article also points out that the original protocols were not followed, with the result that things that should have been learned weren’t.

1 Like
87

What were the changes to the original protocol, and why do you think these changes invalidated the carbon date measured in those three labs?

88

It’s in the article.

89

It describes why you think the changes to the original protocol invalidate the results?

I’ve seen the changes to the protocol, and I can’t see why any of those changes would invalidate the carbon dating results. If there were 7 labs that reported dates in the same age range instead of 3, would you accept those results? If the original protocol suggested using 3 labs, would you have accepted the dates from 3 labs?

90

I didn’t say they did – I said the departure ruined the chance to learn things that could have been learned if the protocols had been followed.

91

The article doesn’t clear anything up:

“Had the recommended protocol for taking this sample been followed (7), we would have an answer for these questions.”

It doesn’t explain what the problematic deviations from the original protocol are, nor why they would have allowed for answers. It’s pretty cryptic.

92

$1 million challenge to replicate Shroud of Turin is expanded to United States
$1 Million Challenge to Replicate Shroud of Turin Press Conference after National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

1 Like
93

These are ridiculous challenges in my opinion. Suppose that the way to really make these cloths is to wrap and bury a crucified bearded man. You can’t do that today!!! But 700 years ago though is a different story. Why is it not plausible that whoever made the shroud just had someone crucified and wrapped them in it to create the forgery?

94

Do you suspect possible shenanigans? Meaning that when they did the actual protocols the results were conclusively ruling out a very early origin for the shroud and so they just cryptically did something else and proclaimed it can’t teach us what we hope to find?

95

I don’t suspect shenanigans unless shown otherwise, and I haven’t seen evidence of shenanigans. I assume people are being honest.

The deviations I am aware of dealt more with carbon dating, not so much with sample selection. Originally, they wanted to send out 7 samples to 7 different labs but they discovered this required a lot more material than they were willing to part with so it was trimmed down to 3 samples. They also included some blind samples, but it was pretty easy to differentiate between the experimental and blind samples. If 7 labs returned a medieval date and if the blinds were effective, would everyone have accepted those results? I have my doubts, and this is further supported by subsequent criticisms of the sample that was chosen or other explanations like the radiation burst theory.

As to sample selection, I’m not sure what the original protocol asked for or how deviations from that protocol resulted in poor sample choice that could have otherwise been avoided. What I do know is the shroud was examined by experts appointed by the investigation team, and they were responsible for selecting the sample. In their opinion, the sample was contiguous with the rest of the shroud and represented original material. They could be wrong, but I don’t know if there were any deviations from the original protocol that would have prevented what some believe was poor sample selection.

1 Like
96
  • Like I told Cicero Moraes privately: I believed in the crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth before I ever heard or read about the Shroud of Turin. I didn’t need it before and I don’t need it now. I won’t lose my faith if some “cunning artist” steps up and claims the prize.
  • The $1,000,000 challenge? It didn’t come out of my pocket. It was put up by an anonymous donor, so I’m told. [P.S. BTW, there’s only one challenge AFIK. The first link was from the “Detroit Catholic”; the second was posted in the "Exhibit News portion of the National Shroud of Turin Exhibit website. I didn’t read that section earlier.]
  • This may come as a really big shock, … or not: I hear David Rolfe, the fellow who “announced” the prize, used to be an atheist and isn’t any more. Atheist Filmmaker

  • So, you think the first “forger” simply wrapped some crucified man up in a 4.4 m X 1.3 m cloth and an image rubbed off on on both halves of the cloth, do you? Where’s the paint that only one guy has ever claimed to have found? [Note: Yeah, that’s right, “only one guy”, Wally McCrone, who wasn’t even on the original STURP team. The 1978 STURP Team.

    • Wally never saw the Shroud itself, up close, Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* - Chemistry, tape sample removal/analysis (Deceased) was the Chemist on the team. According to Rogers:
      • "Ray Rogers wrote to Skeptical Inquirer: “Incidentally, I knew Walter since the 1950s and had compared explosives data with him. I was the one who “commissioned” him to look at the samples that I took in Turin, when nobody else would trust him. I designed the sampling system and box, and I was the person who signed the paper work in Turin so that I could hand-carry the samples back to the US. The officials in Turin and King Umberto would not allow Walter to touch the relic. Walter lied to me about how he would handle the samples, and he early ruined them for additional chemical tests.” Source: More on McCrone.

  • Regarding the “forger story”: take a break from work and wade into the murky pool THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE SHROUD. Bishop Pierre d’Arcis’ lament: (anonymous, unsigned, undated, unsealed, rough draft).

2 Likes
97

Hard to do in secret, and if caught the forger would be a target for charges under church and civil law both.

1 Like
98

I recall reading about that. I think you left an “n” off the first word!

I remember reading about that and almost dropping the magazine as I blurted out “What?!?”
(It reminded me of the theologian who said “God didn’t know Jesus was going to be born”.)

2 Likes
99

“Hen early ruined them”?

100

Oops – second word.