The Shroud is Irrelevent?
I agree with Lenny, who also teaches science, that the shroud is probably real. I agree, too, that it is irrelevant, at least in the sense that he means. It doesn’t matter to me if the shroud is real or not. I don’t see it as an essential ingredient in my soup. However, in another sense, I knew it is very relevant; more like a dash of salt or a pinch of pepper that doesn’t overpower but brings out the flavors. A decade of studying the Shroud has enhanced my scientific reasoning skills, given me a greater appreciation for tradition through history, and focused my thinking about scriptural meaning and possibilities. The shroud, real or fake, does not affect my faith. But the study of it has.
“My brother is afraid of certainty,” said Lenny.
“My brother is afraid of faith,” said Father Joe. “He is an intellectual atheist. Was it not for my faith, I would share his beliefs. God, however, is very real to me.”
PREVIOUS NEXT
The Flat Earth Society
Yet attempts to prove the shroud is fake continue. Why?
The Shadow Shroud
Garlaschelli’s Shroud
Dictionary
Molly from Alaska
The Problem of Curriculum
Objective History
The Shroud is a religious object
Russell Kirk
John A. T. Robinson
Dematerialization
Finally, a clear explanation for the carbon dating
Joe and Lenny
Father Joe on Reason
The Shroud is Irrelevent?
Shroudoids and Skeptoids
Colossus of Rhodes
Lenny’s Opinions
Richard Dawkins on the Shroud
Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence
Dawkins Should Know Better
Historians and the Lack of Evidence
But where are the records for it in
The Mummy at the Georges Labit Museum in Toulouse
Historical Evidence and Scientific Evidence
Raymond N. Rogers
Rogers in Turin
The Lunatic Fringe
Benford and Marino Onto Something
Letter to the Editors of
Joe Nickell: Sour Grapes
Jack of All Trades
Skeptics Dictionary More Closely
Not Proof