snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 31 December 2009, 07:12 PM
Silkenray's Avatar
Silkenray Silkenray is offline
 
Join Date: 04 September 2005
Location: East Anglia, UK
Posts: 3,450
Default

There are reasons not to keep testing and retesting. Radiocarbon dating is an inherently destructive dating method - meaning that each time a test is done, a sample must be taken. Also, a cloth of this age is inherently fragile, and handling always carries a risk of damage. Add that light exposure during testing can break chemical bonds in the fibers, blood/pigments etc and cause permanent and cumulative damage...

It's so selfish of these people to ask for further testing just because the answer isn't the one they'd like. If they're right, they're risking the longevity of a holy artifact of God just to prove a point. If they're wrong, they're harming a fascinating object of immense historical interest to the rest of us for no good reason.

The light exposure issue would probably help explain why the Shroud isn't on regular display, though. If you do go to see it when it is displayed, don't be surprised if it is displayed in a very, very dim room.

(sorry, Art Conservation student here. )
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 31 December 2009, 07:25 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,623
Icon102

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silkenray View Post
It's so selfish of these people to ask for further testing just because the answer isn't the one they'd like. If they're right, they're risking the longevity of a holy artifact of God just to prove a point. If they're wrong, they're harming a fascinating object of immense historical interest to the rest of us for no good reason.
And, in any case, no amount of testing will ever prove it to be "Jesus' burial shroud." The best possible result of testing would only show that it *could* have been such because it was made with materials and techniques known to exist in that time and place.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 31 December 2009, 08:40 PM
Silkenray's Avatar
Silkenray Silkenray is offline
 
Join Date: 04 September 2005
Location: East Anglia, UK
Posts: 3,450
Default

All that said, I am interested in finding out as much as possible about the techniques that went into making the shroud while minimizing damage. Spectroscopy, for instance, to determine the materials used... Having textile experts examine it to look at the technique involved in the weaving, the length and quality of the fibers, etc etc. New research for new information, rather than assuming that the initial tests done by three top laboratories were incorrect because they gave the "wrong" result and repeating tests that have already been done.

If they're going to handle an important artifact like the shroud, take samples for testing, expose it to hazardous environmental factors such as light, heat and humidity fluctuations, it should be in order to learn something new.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 31 December 2009, 10:07 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silkenray View Post
There are reasons not to keep testing and retesting. Radiocarbon dating is an inherently destructive dating method - meaning that each time a test is done, a sample must be taken. . . .
In general, you are very right. In this specific instance, we had a stroke of luck (and the Church and the shroud itself had a stroke of misfortune) in that a fire partially damaged the shroud, so that samples can be taken from the charred edges of the burned portion. (And burning a sample doesn't alter its Carbon-14 characteristics.)

But, yes, I'd hate to see a chunk of, say, the Mona Lisa sacrificed for purposes of isotope dating!

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 31 December 2009, 11:51 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
 
Join Date: 14 July 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 12,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
And, in any case, no amount of testing will ever prove it to be "Jesus' burial shroud." The best possible result of testing would only show that it *could* have been such because it was made with materials and techniques known to exist in that time and place.
But, who else was crucified around A.D. 33, while bleeding from the back and neck, and wearing a crown of thorns, and on top of that, did something like get resurrected, that would leave a scortch mark in the shape of his image on the shroud? Therefore, if it dates to around A.D. 33, it must be Jesus'.

At least that's what the guys on some badly spelled Christian websites tell me.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01 January 2010, 12:36 AM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
. . . At least that's what the guys on some badly spelled Christian websites tell me.
To invoke Guadere's Law, there was a misspelling in your post...

But, more seriously, this is something that has perplexed me -- but which I also have found oddly comforting: in the "desktop publishing era," anyone ought to be able to put together a web site that is nicely laid-out, informative, organized, with correct spelling and grammar. Why is it that extremist sites so often give themselves away by their horrid formatting? Is there some deep-seating psychological need to express their zealotry and extremism even at the level of their lay-out?

I'm pleased by it, to be sure! I would love to live in a world where evil -- or at least stupidity -- always betrayed itself in its seeming. But isn't one of the tenets of most religions that evil can come in a goodly guise? Why haven't so many of these creeps figured out how to present themselves convincingly?

Silas (by the law cited, there must be at least one typographical error in this post, also! So---hear's one!)
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01 January 2010, 01:08 AM
Lachrymose's Avatar
Lachrymose Lachrymose is offline
 
Join Date: 31 March 2007
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,820
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
But, who else was crucified around A.D. 33, while bleeding from the back and neck, and wearing a crown of thorns, and on top of that, did something like get resurrected, that would leave a scortch mark in the shape of his image on the shroud? .
Brian?

...
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02 January 2010, 03:16 PM
cobra4j
 
Posts: n/a
Default Resistance to reality

I was in seminary when the shroud was tested the first time around 1990. I was extremely disappointed, and wanted very much to find a reason to not believe the test.

It didn't take long to find it. For one thing one of my fellow students had actually helped with Carbon dating, and it is not a perfect science.

However, since then, I have heard other things about the shroud that lend a lot of credence to the argument it cannot be genuine.

I'm not sure what the psychological term for it would be, but I have noticed that a lot of people, once they have made up their mind, tend to stick to their idea of "reality" even when proof positive is practically being shoved down their throats.

I think we need to look at the shroud in a new way. If it is genuine, then it might indeed be proof Jesus rose from the dead. I would like that to be true.

But - part of faith is to believe without proof. Part of faith is to see beyond this reality and believe in the greater reality that we cannot see.

Perhaps that's the real lesson of the shroud - to remind us that real faith does not come from seeing "proof" burned into a cloth; real faith requires something more.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05 July 2010, 11:25 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,623
Icon215 Shroud of Turin is real enough

The cult of relics is often dismissed by 21st century non-Catholics, but one thing that's rarely taken into consideration is that scientific tests don't matter. Lambast the faithful for this antiquated form of worship. Snicker at the sight of someone praying in front of a golden reliquary that houses a shard of bone or a skin fragment from a medieval saint or a pope. It's an exercise in futility.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...umn10_ST_N.htm
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 21 December 2011, 10:51 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,623
Glasses Turin Shroud 'was created by flash of supernatural light'

The image on the Turin Shroud could not be the work of medieval forgers but was instead caused by a supernatural ‘flash of light’, according to scientists.

Italian researchers have found evidence that casts doubt on claims that the relic – said to be the burial cloth of Jesus – is a fake and they suggest that it could, after all, be authentic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ral-light.html
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 22 December 2011, 12:04 PM
JoeBentley's Avatar
JoeBentley JoeBentley is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 21,796
Default

*Sighs* So a "scientist" claimed something was caused by a "supernatural" event.

Yeah right.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 22 December 2011, 12:15 PM
damian's Avatar
damian damian is offline
 
Join Date: 14 April 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,475
Default

As I say to all fundamentalists that refuse to believe the logic: God speaks to me and says it is a fake.

Now, prove I'm wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 22 December 2011, 12:50 PM
diddy's Avatar
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,892
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
*Sighs* So a "scientist" claimed something was caused by a "supernatural" event.

Yeah right.
Even worse, this theory is one of the older pseudoscientific explanations that I heard. I am still reeling after the eye rolling from when I read it. The first thing I thought of "not that nonsense".

Heck the article itself is full of logical fallacies such as "it could only be" plus insertion of pseudoscience.

Not to mention they are working backward - from the assumption that the shroud is real.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 22 December 2011, 01:10 PM
fitz1980 fitz1980 is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra4j View Post
I'm not sure what the psychological term for it would be, but I have noticed that a lot of people, once they have made up their mind, tend to stick to their idea of "reality" even when proof positive is practically being shoved down their throats.
I don't know the term but I always called it "the reverse scientific method." Rather than start with a hypothesis based on observation of the facts and than testing it to see if it holds up; you start with a conclusion, latch onto anything that might prove said conclusion and dismiss anything that could disprove it. You see it all of the time in conspiracy theories & creationism literature.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 22 December 2011, 01:19 PM
diddy's Avatar
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,892
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fitz1980 View Post
I don't know the term but I always called it "the reverse scientific method."
I think the more accurate term for simply refusing to accept alternative theories outside of your own is "cognitive dissonance" mixed in with confirmation bias. You think your own theories are correct (the bias) and you refuse to change that belief (the dissonance). You may arrive at your particular idea via the reverse scientific method, but you are talking about a process (heavily flawed) rather than an ongoing status.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 22 December 2011, 02:50 PM
Gayle Gayle is offline
 
Join Date: 21 February 2000
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by damian View Post
As I say to all fundamentalists that refuse to believe the logic: God speaks to me and says it is a fake.

Now, prove I'm wrong.
Your true protestant fundamentalist doesn't hold any truck with the shroud anyway. It's seen as a graven image and that's a no no. Just like they don't have crucifixes, but plain crosses.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 23 December 2011, 11:04 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 11,331
Default

Except for the ones who do.

Fundamentalists can be wildly inconsistent in which parts of their faith they actually accept.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 26 December 2011, 05:39 AM
damian's Avatar
damian damian is offline
 
Join Date: 14 April 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,475
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gayle View Post
Your true protestant fundamentalist doesn't hold any truck with the shroud anyway. It's seen as a graven image and that's a no no. Just like they don't have crucifixes, but plain crosses.
Protestantism is not really a religion, though, is it?

Forget the fact that it's all made up for a moment. Anyone that would worship a piece of cloth (or a shoe or a gourd) should take a good, hard look at themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 26 December 2011, 06:17 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,011
Reading

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
Fundamentalists can be wildly inconsistent in which parts of their faith they actually accept.
True. How big do some of them think the eye of a needle is anyway?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 27 December 2011, 05:46 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 11,331
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by damian View Post
Protestantism is not really a religion, though, is it?
That depends on what the cutoff criteria is that you use to define the difference between two related religions and two different denominations of the same religion.

If we really, really wanted to, we could probably think of enough ways to differentiate between individual churches that we could make a credible argument for each of them being different religions, as the entire thing is an arbitrary definition of a man-made concept.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.