Somebody write me out of the blue…

…to ask what I think about the latest boasts that the Shroud of Turin has been reproduced.

Anyway, having looked at the article, I think the debunkers are, well, how should I put it? For people who are solely motivated by, you know, evidence and reason they sure seem to be stealing a lot of bases. Why, it’s almost as though they have arrived at their conclusion before they ever started (that is, made an act of faith) and are now simply trying to make the evidence fit their pre-ordained conclusion. The Church makes no claims about the supernatural origin of the Shroud so far as I know. It says, along with the whole scientific community, “We don’t know how the image got there.” Looking at the real image and the one faked by the scientists:

I think the first one looks more like a photo and second one more like a cheesy rubbing. I think something similar was proposed a decade or two ago, but I don’t really remember. It will be interesting to see if the faked image doesn’t simply resemble the image on the Shroud, but whether it tests the same chemically. Also, explaining how a medieval forger knew the anatomy of crucifixion will be fun. And that whole trick of getting a herringbone weave cloth covered with pollen from the Holy Land was certainly fore-sighted of the forger.

Bottom line: we still don’t really know hardly anything. Some Guy with an Agenda has made a fake that is to the Shroud as carob is to chocolate and is now shouting “Mystery solved!” The mystery is far from solved. That doesn’t make the Shroud genuine. But neither does it make the fake an explanation. Embracing faith in skepticism is still embracing faith. It’s certainly not embracing facts, evidence and reason alone.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X