The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends • Hacker News Board

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#141

Post by valuearb » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:41 PM UTC

d_theorist wrote: post #68

codingdave wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea, but that seems completely orthogonal to what technique was used.

It’s extremely relevant to the question, which is what the negative nature of the image has to tell us about the relative probabilities of the two hypotheses (miraculous hypothesis vs fraud hypothesis). In my view, it is a big problem for the fraud hypothesis because you have to explain why and how it was done. At a time when the idea of a photo negative was entirely unknown, and when there are no other examples of n…

> In my view, it is a big problem for the fraud hypothesis because you have to explain why and how it was done.

Why is it hard to imagine the perpetrators just painted a model with red ochre and draped a cloth over him?

And you are misunderstanding the burden of proof, fraud is merely one possible explanation. Even if you show that its real blood instead of paint, how do you demonstrate that its not the impression of a dead medieval knight and was later mis-interpreted as a shroud of Jesus after the original creation was forgotten?

Those who would claim its actually the shroud of Jesus have the burden of proving it could possibly be old enough, that it could have been woven by peoples of that time, that the red ochre is actually blood, that Jesus actually existed, that he was crucified, and that he was laid in this shroud and its his blood.

And even then that doesn't show he was resurrected, or that he was divine, or a god, or anything to that effect. We have a ton of evidence Jesus wasn't, his own failed prophecy of the kingdom of heaven coming before the disciples passed, and his crying out for god on the cross.

Mostly we have the fact that the super active, super public god of the bible disappeared after all these stories were written and hasn't been seen since, despite claiming its the most important thing in the world that people know he exists. Essentially damning more than 90% of all the people who have ever lived to hell.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#142

Post by FearNotDaniel » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 6:03 PM UTC

injb wrote: post #114

The most amazing theory I ever read was from The Second Messiah, which is totally fanciful and speculative, but even as a work of the imagination its strikingly impressive. What they said was that it's not fake, but its not exactly real either, in the sense that its not Jesus. What we're seeing is the image of a man who was tortured the way Jesus was said to have been tortured, including the crucifixion. But the man…

Sounds like an interesting read, even if it’s largely speculation. The hands vs wrists question is a perennial puzzler, compounded by the fact that nobody actually knows exactly how crucifixion was carried out in that part of the Roman Empire at the time. However I got an interesting perspective on it when getting to know my wife who, as an Austrian from the countryside has a particular regional way of speaking German. One aspect of her local dialect is that she will often use the word “foot” (Fuß) to refer to the whole leg. So it’s not that big a stretch to imagine one particular group of Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek speakers at the time would use the same word for hand and wrist. This time, I am the one who is speculating - apart from the fact that the Greek word used in John’s Gospel to refer to Jesus’ hands (when He shows Thomas the holes) is the same word that Luke also uses in Acts to describe where the chains fell off from Peter [0], and often translated as “wrists”.

[0] https://www.gotquestions.org/nails-hands-wrists.html

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#143

Post by card_zero » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 6:18 PM UTC

User23 wrote: post #134

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Which is funny, because atheism is fundamentally and quite literally irrational. " This sounds like the 'no you' response. You didn't make any point. Just because there are open questions doesn't mean there is a god. There are unknowns -> ? -> Must be god. All of the same arguments you made also apply to aliens. Even if I were to follow your argument as "there are unknowns thus god", I'm pretty sure it isn't the Chr…

I made a point, but you got defensive and missed it. I’m not defending theism, I’m pointing out what I find to be an amusing irony about supposedly rationalist atheism. I’m not pointing out open questions, I’m presenting offered answers. To the atheist that all these things happened for no reason at all isn’t an open question, it’s a definitively held belief. > Just because there are open questions doesn't mean there…

You know, you're only saying that it's in a manner of speaking anti-rational to deny the existence of a god who is, presumably, supremely rational. It's an amusing observation, but it doesn't follow that it's reasonable to think the being exists just because the being is supposed to be reasonable.

And this argument certainly sounds similar to the "God of the gaps" argument. Instead of "there are things science can't explain" it's more like "the scientific world view doesn't satisfy my gut feeling that things happen for reasons", but that's a similar kind of gap, just a more philosophical one.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#144

Post by binary132 » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 7:18 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #140

appguy wrote: post #20

Something that amazes me about The Shroud of Turin is that if it was created in the 14th century, how did they create a photographic negative 400 years before the first known photographic negative was created in 1826 by Nicephore Niepce. It’s the most studied artifact in history and still no one knows how The Shroud was created.

Anyone who has made the mistake of storing expensive clothing in a closet with a window (/me raises hand) can explain how the Shroud could have been created. An object that blocks sunlight from reaching a dark cloth will leave an unmistakable image of itself.

So the hypothesis here is that they hung a dead guy in front of a dark cloth for a few months, and also made sure that the details of his face somehow made it onto the cloth even though the light was silhouetting him? Or am I missing something here?

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#145

Post by FrustratedMonky » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 7:38 PM UTC

User23 wrote: post #134

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Which is funny, because atheism is fundamentally and quite literally irrational. " This sounds like the 'no you' response. You didn't make any point. Just because there are open questions doesn't mean there is a god. There are unknowns -> ? -> Must be god. All of the same arguments you made also apply to aliens. Even if I were to follow your argument as "there are unknowns thus god", I'm pretty sure it isn't the Chr…

I made a point, but you got defensive and missed it. I’m not defending theism, I’m pointing out what I find to be an amusing irony about supposedly rationalist atheism. I’m not pointing out open questions, I’m presenting offered answers. To the atheist that all these things happened for no reason at all isn’t an open question, it’s a definitively held belief. > Just because there are open questions doesn't mean there…

"you got defensive"

I guess, if by responding, you mean 'defensive'. Any counter point is a defense.

I think maybe unwittingly, or maybe on purpose sarcastically, you are just playing with words. And maybe I lost the thread of the point you were making.

You're entire paragraph was about 'reason', and how physics does not allow for 'reason', or explain reason, that nothing that happens is because of 'reason' and thus atheist are irrational because physics is not rational.

Maybe you are just making a little joke, that Atheist just believe in a physical world, and there is no 'reason' or intelligence behind it, it is just all cause and effect. That they are 'irrational' because they are in the universe and the universe is 'irrational'.

You basically just made a common argument for Intelligent Design/God/Simulation Theory(the alien), take your pick. That because we can't explain things inside the universe with 'reason', there must be some 'supernatural' level beyond our first order natural world, that would have reason. Something beyond our own that has reason, in order to create ours that does not have reason.

But really, on re-reading your argument, and response. I am not sure. I don't know any atheist that believe as you say they do. So it seemed like a straw man, you are projecting an atheist belief to knock it down. Just because they don't believe in a god, doesn't mean we wont be able to figure things out, to find the 'reason' for why things are the way they are.

It is very difficult when picking up an argument mid-stride with a stranger on the internet. I thought you were making an anti-atheist point, which sounded like Intelligent Design/God/Simulation Theory. But maybe you were just making some observation on how humans can't know, because if the universe is all determined, then they can't break free of that to observe it from the outside.

-> Maybe you were making a little joke, the physical/real world is irrational, atheist believe in only a physical/real universe, thus atheist are irrational.

If you want to re-state your original point, that would be good.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#146

Post by User23 » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 8:58 PM UTC

card_zero wrote: post #143

User23 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made a point, but you got defensive and missed it. I’m not defending theism, I’m pointing out what I find to be an amusing irony about supposedly rationalist atheism. I’m not pointing out open questions, I’m presenting offered answers. To the atheist that all these things happened for no reason at all isn’t an open question, it’s a definitively held belief. > Just because there are open questions doesn't mean there…

You know, you're only saying that it's in a manner of speaking anti-rational to deny the existence of a god who is, presumably, supremely rational. It's an amusing observation, but it doesn't follow that it's reasonable to think the being exists just because the being is supposed to be reasonable. And this argument certainly sounds similar to the "God of the gaps" argument. Instead of "there are things science can't…

The limitations of science say nothing about atheism or theism. However, the metaphysics of science firmly rest on the notion that things do happen for reasons and that those reasons are potentially knowable.

The rationalist view says that there are reasons for why the universe exists, why stars and planets exist, why life exists, and why occasionally intelligent life such as ourselves exists. That there are atheists who still hold the rationalist position is unsurprising, since it’s quite common for people to hold unexamined contradictory beliefs.

Certainly you can get to the monotheistic God from there, but there are plenty of other alternatives that avoid the things happened for no reason at all problem, such as panpsychism just to name one.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#147

Post by FearNotDaniel » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 9:03 PM UTC

codingdave wrote: post #54

graemep wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you are being sarcastic, but nonetheless worth pointing out that almost all miracles attributed to Jesus have some point and/or symbolic importance (e.g. to relive suffering, as an illustration of who he was, etc.). A miraculous shroud just seems showy.

Honestly, how would we know what all the miracles were? For arguments sake, whether or not you are Christian, let us say that Jesus did wander around performing miracles. The Bible is certainly not an audit trail of everything he did. It is the stories that survived. There would certainly be a bias in which stories those were. It seems reasonable to assume other miracles would have occurred that were not recorded, in…

You’re absolutely right and don’t even need to assume anything… right at the end of John’s Gospel [0] (i.e. in the Bible itself) we are told that Jesus performed so many more acts that you couldn’t possibly write them all down.

[0] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021%3A24-...

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#148

Post by FrustratedMonky » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 9:20 PM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #125

recursive wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nature of faith rejects the validity of such burdens of proof.

In Catholic beliefs, understanding, intelligence, logic, and reason are significant virtues. The believer is not supposed to be unquestioning of the world and treat everything as a miracle, lest they lose their faith. Instead, they are expected exactly to seek to understand the world, and marvel at God's creation in all their understanding. Especially related to miracles, the Catholic Church has a dedicated office fo…

"The believer is not supposed to be unquestioning of the world and treat everything as a miracle"

Surely this is jest. I like the sentiment, but I don't find many Christians doing much questioning. At least not modern 21 century Christians. Old School Catholics or Jesuits used to be a bit more open to science. Even Evangelicals were more open to questioning and even allowed abortions. It was only in recent decades it seems religion took a more 'old testament, brimstone, fundamentalist' bent.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#149

Post by CamperBob2 » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 9:36 PM UTC

binary132 wrote: post #144

CamperBob2 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who has made the mistake of storing expensive clothing in a closet with a window (/me raises hand) can explain how the Shroud could have been created. An object that blocks sunlight from reaching a dark cloth will leave an unmistakable image of itself.

So the hypothesis here is that they hung a dead guy in front of a dark cloth for a few months, and also made sure that the details of his face somehow made it onto the cloth even though the light was silhouetting him? Or am I missing something here?

If it's a forgery, it could have been done simply by using whatever sculpted or hand-formed objects were needed to create the negative image. Basically a stencil.

Point being, people are way too eager to assume supernatural causes.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#150

Post by agarren » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 9:58 PM UTC

aestetix wrote: post #66

I would be curious what Michael Shermer and others think of some of the more recent scientific investigations, as detailled by Fr. Andrew Dalton on Pints with Aquinas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAbuG-oVq1Q

I doubt he’d think much of it. I’m about 2/3rds through it. It’s all more of the same and not terribly convincing.

Fr. Andrew Dalton is a Sindonologist(?), somebody who studies the shroud, but not necessarily from a scientific perspective. Sindonology isn’t exactly embraced by Shermer in his article, or, apparently, by the scientific community in general. I hadn’t encountered the term before, but at a glance it seems to have all the scientific rigor of ufology or cryptozoology.

What I’ve heard so far in the video isn’t new evidence, but enthusiastic re-hashing of previous topics that have already been discussed to death. The video offers precisely the kinds of suspicious arguments that Shermer talks about. Exactly, in the case of C14 dating, “French invisible weaves”, and corner-holding-contamination.

I hadn’t encountered the AZ 1 & 2 C14 differences though and I’d be curious to get more details. He only briefly mentions them and doesn’t provide anything further. Fr. Dalton seems to point people to shroud.com which he calls “the most scientific of websites’ - that statement seems dubious at best, and browsing the site doesn’t change my impression.

I do appreciate that towards the end of the video that Fr. Dalton completely acknowledges that there is no evidence dating the shroud to the 1st century. All the other discussion around the “historical facts” surrounding JC, such as the kind of crown we supposedly wore, the kind of cross he supposedly carried, etc. is very eye-brow raising. The discussion of Eucharistic miracles and the prevalence of the AB blood type is similarly…interesting.

At the end of the day the authenticity of the shroud is a matter of faith. Evidence doesn’t seem like it should be important.