|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
 Posted - 06/26/2005 : 13:13:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Please provide reference to the "experts" you are reffering to. I'd be interested in seeing just exactly how "so sure" they were.
Well when I was checking out articles regarding the Shroud at the university libary in the mid eighties or so, there were lots of articles in apparently reputable scientific journals. I assume the scientists behind the articles were sufficiently expert. I don't recall the names of the journals, unfortunately. But as I recall from those journals, even *before* the 1988 C14 dating there was confidence that the shroud was medieval. (I can only imagine the gloating that went on after the 1988 datings  )
quote:
Originally posted by Dude: I can't emphasize this enough: WHen you make a claim, you are responsible for providing evidence to support that claim. What evidence is provided, that withstands even minimal scrutiny, by those who claim this shroud is "The" shroud?
Actually I wasn't intending to go into the details of the claims on this thread, only to make the general point (via the Discovery article of Jan. 2005) that skepticism as to the shroud's age - and thus possibly even the shroud's authenticity - appears to have been misplaced. I mean, the knee jerk skeptical *assumption* is that it couldn't possibly be the burial shroud of Jesus. That's all, in keeping with the thread's theme.
|
 |
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2005 : 14:12:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
First, provide evidence that jesus ever existed in the first place.
Or John the Baptist, or the disciples of Jesus like Peter, or later Paul (who wrote that he personally met with Peter and James) ... When does it stop?
quote:
Originally posted by Dude Second, why the insitance that the alledged image on the alledged shroud was of a "crucified" man? How can you tell?
Even skeptic articles freely admit that as is demonstrated in the article extract below.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Third... the most straighforward explanation is to posit that is "was" jesus? Huh?
Only if it was *not* the work of an artist. It may well have been the work of an artist, but if it wasn't, it was more likely Jesus than not imo.
Anyways, here is snippet of an article from
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/as/schafersman.html (originally published 1998), showing the confidence that the shroud was medieval:
"the Shroud has been demonstrated by appropriate arguments and evidence to be a medieval artifact, contrived by a fourteenth-century artist for the purpose of representing the burial shroud of Jesus and creating a religious relic for exhibition and veneration. All the historical, artistic, iconographical, and scientific evidence compels one to accept this conclusion. No further examinations or tests of the Shroud are needed: the Shroud of Turin is not the burial shroud of Jesus, and certain individuals, authors3, magazines4, organizations5, and institutions6 should stop the unseemly exploitation of it as if it were or as if it could be." |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2005 : 14:41:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Or John the Baptist, or the disciples of Jesus like Peter, or later Paul (who wrote that he personally met with Peter and James) ... When does it stop?
It stops when you can provide credible evidence to support the claim. There is a reasonable standard of historical evidence that can be applied to determine if historical figures ever existed. Like mention by other historians in other cultures and/or geographical regions. If any such ever existed, the church destroyed or confiscated it all long ago in the case of jesus.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dude
Third... the most straighforward explanation is to posit that is "was" jesus? Huh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only if it was *not* the work of an artist. It may well have been the work of an artist, but if it wasn't, it was more likely Jesus than not imo.
Your statement fails the test of logic in many ways. I'll grant you that the "image" is of a crucified man. I'll grant you that it can't be accurately dated to any timeframe more specific that a 1700 year span. I'll even grant you that it is not the work of an artist. Now, add up the number of people who died by crucifiction between 1000BC and 700AD in the appropriate geographical area, a rough approximation will do.
The fact that you can claim it is "more likely than not" jesus, given that info, boggles the rational mind. Your claim is ridiculous.
When you take into consideration the number of forged "holy relics" made by people in the last 2000 years, your claims moves from ridiculous to the realm of pure fantasy.
quote:
"the Shroud has been demonstrated by appropriate arguments and evidence to be a medieval artifact, contrived by a fourteenth-century artist for the purpose of representing the burial shroud of Jesus and creating a religious relic for exhibition and veneration. All the historical, artistic, iconographical, and scientific evidence compels one to accept this conclusion. No further examinations or tests of the Shroud are needed: the Shroud of Turin is not the burial shroud of Jesus, and certain individuals, authors3, magazines4, organizations5, and institutions6 should stop the unseemly exploitation of it as if it were or as if it could be."
A statement made in the light of solid carbon dating evidence. I'll give you that the language is strong. Has this author written anything since this contradicting date evidence was released?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2005 : 18:57:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Excellent. Did he accurately reproduce a shroud like image, showing up in photographic negative like the Turin shroud, and with other characteristic features of the shroud? I'd like to see it and how it compares with the Turin shroud.
I'll see if I can track down the name of the show I saw it on. But one thing has always confused me: why is it claimed that the shroud image is a "photographic negative?" If so, the claim is that Jesus had a gray or white beard and moustache by the time he was 34, along with a chestful of gray hair. It's a claim that his blood is white (despite the fact that it is red on the shroud, when for it to be a "photographic negative," it should be a shade of cyan). The "photographic negative" claim just doesn't hold up for anyone who's got an inkling about photography.quote:
OK, I see what you're getting at and that is an interesting point. A couple of articles I read said that some finger(s) were too long, among other things, so that seems to be a different kind of image 'problem' than the one you are describing.
Yeah, and I can see that in the image. The artist screwed up.quote:
That's a puzzler about the problem of the 3D to 2D mapping. Assuming it was Jesus, I would posit that the Turin shroud was pulled fairly tight over and under the body, overtop of any wrappings underneath. And the energy pulse or whatever created the image was in line with gravitational field lines of force, up and down.
And the image still would have been a bit of a fat-head, and if the shroud were really tight, his nose should have been mushed, and his hair wouldn't have been so far from his head. Also, why would this "energy pulse or whatever" distinguish light from dark as if the body were lit from above the head? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2005 : 20:06:08 [Permalink]
|
So I did more searching and there is still much doubt in the validity of the claims in markie's links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
Links at the bottom of the article.
[quote="http://skepdic.com/shroud.html"]Dr. Raymond Rogers, a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, claims that the part of the cloth tested and dated at around 1350 was not part of the original shroud. According to Rogers, the labs that dated the cloth to the 14th century tested a patch made to repair damage done by fire. How does he know this, since the patch was destroyed in the testing? According to shroud investigator Joe Nickell, Rogers "relied on two little threads allegedly left over from the sampling" and the word of "pro-authenticity researchers who guessed that the carbon-14 sample came from a 'rewoven area' of repair." According to Nickell, P.E. Damon's 1989 article published in Nature claims that "textile experts specifically made efforts to select a site for taking the radiocarbon sample that was away from patches and seams."[/quote]
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2005 : 21:11:26 [Permalink]
|
In an attempt to get back on topic...
I personally try to never say, "That is wrong," at least not right away. I like the phrase, "That doesn't sound right," much better, followed up by looking up information on the topic to then be able to conclude that it is in fact wrong. To me, that is the difference between skepticism and cynicism. Of course, skeptics can often look like cynics when they already know the information behind something and are often able to say it is wrong without having to check facts.
This actually came into play when I was told be a friend that Jell-O is made by chicken cartilage. I thought that was completely bogus, but upon looking up information on it, I found it was possible (I had no idea what gelatin was at the time). However, Jell-O uses cow or pig bones, hooves, and connective tissues (mostly skin).
quote:
It is consistent I suppose that a skeptic should be at least somewhat skeptical of his skepticism.
Skeptics should be skeptical of what they think, that is to say they should be critical of what they think.
But skepticism is a totally different thing than being skeptical of something. Skepticism is a tool, it tells us how to evaluate a claim. Such as asking questions, the hard questions, trying to find flaws in logic, and getting evidence.
Can you really be skeptical of asking questions, or checking logic, or getting evidence? I don't really see anything wrong with those, do you? |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 06/26/2005 21:15:40 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2005 : 12:18:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude: Your statement fails the test of logic in many ways. I'll grant you that the "image" is of a crucified man. I'll grant you that it can't be accurately dated to any timeframe more specific that a 1700 year span. I'll even grant you that it is not the work of an artist. Now, add up the number of people who died by crucifiction between 1000BC and 700AD in the appropriate geographical area, a rough approximation will do.
Personally, I am about 50-50 undecided between artistic fraud and the real thing. If it wasn't fraud and if it isn't Jesus, one must account for the probabilities that a crucified man would get such a 'high end' burial cloth, the probabilities that believing christians would happen upon such a cloth if it wasn't Jesus, and the probabilities of an image forming by strictly natural and normal means.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude: When you take into consideration the number of forged "holy relics" made by people in the last 2000 years, your claims moves from ridiculous to the realm of pure fantasy.
You're implying now that the image may well have been 'forged' by an artist, a possibility I myself seriously consider.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude: I'll give you that the language is strong. Has this author written anything since this contradicting date evidence was released?
I don't know. But I find it fascinating that he and Mcrone I believe are all for closing the book on further investigation, while the unconvinced and believers alike would like to do further investigation.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2005 : 12:34:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Personally, I am about 50-50 undecided between artistic fraud and the real thing. If it wasn't fraud and if it isn't Jesus, one must account for the probabilities that a crucified man would get such a 'high end' burial cloth, the probabilities that believing christians would happen upon such a cloth if it wasn't Jesus, and the probabilities of an image forming by strictly natural and normal means.
Only poor people were crucified?
And your other two arguments in that quote argue against it being "real".
And you still have to overcome the lack of evidence for jesus having been a real person.
quote:
But I find it fascinating that he and Mcrone I believe are all for closing the book on further investigation, while the unconvinced and believers alike would like to do further investigation.
Why is it fascinating? They have solid evidence that the thing is fraudulent. There isn't any compelling evidence that overrules all the other evidence that says its fake.
You are doing what many religious people do. You find one bit of evidence or one aspect that doesn't perfectly fit, and you then dismiss an entire hypothesis regardless of how good the rest of the evidence is.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2005 : 12:54:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
But one thing has always confused me: why is it claimed that the shroud image is a "photographic negative?" If so, the claim is that Jesus had a gray or white beard and moustache by the time he was 34, along with a chestful of gray hair. It's a claim that his blood is white (despite the fact that it is red on the shroud, when for it to be a "photographic negative," it should be a shade of cyan). The "photographic negative" claim just doesn't hold up for anyone who's got an inkling about photography.
I don't know much about photography, but apparently the reason the image shows up better as a photograhic negative is because the negative image has *some* characteristics of a positive image. That means of course that image itself has *some* characteristics of a negative.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yeah, and I can see that in the image. The artist screwed up.
Yet even McRone(sp?) says that the artistic work was brilliant. The apparent screwing up of simple proportions seems a little incongruous to that. Also, it does appear that an actual man was used to generate the image, making a screw up in proportions that much more problematic. It seems to me that the proportion problem is a problem for any position, perhaps least for the artistic paradigm. Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And the image still would have been a bit of a fat-head, and if the shroud were really tight, his nose should have been mushed, and his hair wouldn't have been so far from his head. Also, why would this "energy pulse or whatever" distinguish light from dark as if the body were lit from above the head?
All good points. I don't know. To me the best thing that could happen is that someone stumbles upon a method to reproduce such a shroud like image which is consistent with the Turin image in just about all respects (except age of course).
Just for the record, if it is Jesus, my belief is that the image is one resulting not from a resurrection process but rather from an accelerated decay process.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2005 : 12:56:47 [Permalink]
|
Just for the hell of it, let's assume that the shroud did indeed come from the time of Jesus. And let us further assume that it is indeed the windings of a crusified person.
Remembering that crusifiction was a very common, if excessivly barbaric, method of execution in the times, how can anyone say with any certainity that it once contained the corpse of Jesus? I don't see even the Bible backing that one up.
So, why should the shroud be any more than an interesting, ancient artifact, little different in importance than a period potsherd?
The fraud story is much more likely and certainly more interesting. If the carbon dates are correct, and I've yet to see anything beyond conjecture that they are not, it was manufactured during a time when religious artifacts were a booming business. Slivers of the True Cross, various bones, teeth, and vials of the blood of the saints, among other silly-but-taken-seriously, objects were to be had all over Christiandom. For the right price, or to glorify a church, these things were a serious business. A carefully crafted 'shroud' would fit right in, would it not?
And I would not be suprised to learn that there are/were more than just the one.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2005 : 13:15:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky Skeptics should be skeptical of what they think, that is to say they should be critical of what they think.
But skepticism is a totally different thing than being skeptical of something. Skepticism is a tool, it tells us how to evaluate a claim. Such as asking questions, the hard questions, trying to find flaws in logic, and getting evidence.
Can you really be skeptical of asking questions, or checking logic, or getting evidence? I don't really see anything wrong with those, do you?
Not at all. That's the best part of skepticism, it encourages investigative rigour. Yet at the same it has the weakness that it, for the practical purposes of such investigation, assumes that all phenomena can be explained by merely reshuffling the deck of what is currently understood. That assumption can become like a article of faith, over and above the pragmatic tool that it is.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2005 : 13:18:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I don't know much about photography, but apparently the reason the image shows up better as a photograhic negative is because the negative image has *some* characteristics of a positive image. That means of course that image itself has *some* characteristics of a negative.
The popular claim is that it is a "photographic negative." That claim is clearly wrong.quote:
Yet even McRone(sp?) says that the artistic work was brilliant.
Is McRone (however it's spelled) a 14th-century art historian? If so, I'd question his competency, since much more "brilliant" work from conteporary artists is available for viewing on the web. I was able to find several examples in five minutes - of Jesus, even - in which body proportions are not grossly distorted. Paintings which are far more detailed, too, yet still anatomically correct (even if they didn't have the perspective thing nailed down, yet).quote:
Also, it does appear that an actual man was used to generate the image...
I don't know what makes you think that.quote:
To me the best thing that could happen is that someone stumbles upon a method to reproduce such a shroud like image which is consistent with the Turin image in just about all respects (except age of course).
And Joe Nickell has done so.quote:
Just for the record, if it is Jesus, my belief is that the image is one resulting not from a resurrection process but rather from an accelerated decay process.
Which is putting the cart before the horse. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2005 : 13:36:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky Skeptics should be skeptical of what they think, that is to say they should be critical of what they think.
But skepticism is a totally different thing than being skeptical of something. Skepticism is a tool, it tells us how to evaluate a claim. Such as asking questions, the hard questions, trying to find flaws in logic, and getting evidence.
Can you really be skeptical of asking questions, or checking logic, or getting evidence? I don't really see anything wrong with those, do you?
Not at all. That's the best part of skepticism, it encourages investigative rigour. Yet at the same it has the weakness that it, for the practical purposes of such investigation, assumes that all phenomena can be explained by merely reshuffling the deck of what is currently understood. That assumption can become like a article of faith, over and above the pragmatic tool that it is.
Who thinks all phenomena can be explained without introducing new ideas? Certainly not I. And I think many others would agree. But when we have a way to explain something that we already know, why introduce that which we don't?
There are infinite explanations for everything. We go with what explains all the evidence and makes the most sense. If it is wrong, then there should be some theoretical evidence that could be found which shows that it is wrong. If there isn't any such evidence, then what exactly is the difference? |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2005 : 13:42:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude And you still have to overcome the lack of evidence for jesus having been a real person.
At the very least, the application of Ockham's razor makes it virtually certain that Jesus existed. Otherwise, you would have to posit a massively complex conspiracy theory, involving some Jews who wanted to start a new religion and who then invented a master and a mythology to boot. It is much more reasonable to believe the man Jesus really existed, and that *some* things about him and his life were not quite accurately portrayed.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
