Why an Atheist Thinks the Shroud of Turin is the Real Deal

Lenny’s Opinions

·         It is perceived as being part of an argument for the existence of God and as an effort to prove the Resurrection.

·         The claim by proponents that the images cannot be recreated is fallacious. It is fair to say that no one has yet figured out how. But to imply that the images are miraculous, as some do, is no different than God-of-the-gaps arguments voiced in opposition to evolution.

·         The attempts by skeptics to recreate the images (and even claim that they have), is equally fallacious. In essence they are saying that if they were able to produce a forgery of the shroud, then the shroud itself must be a forgery as well.

·         Unsubstantiated claims such as images of coins or arguments about dematerialization are  more than distractions. They are so over the top that skepticism becomes a reflex reaction.

·         Fake claims about history such as the claim by skeptics that there is no history before 1350 or the hearsay claims of a jealous French bishop are anti-intellectual. Notice that it is never historians that say this. They know better.

·         The notion that carbon dating is somehow infallible because it was performed by three laboratories is preposterous. Each of three labs performed the same one test on a fragment of the same one sample. No one ever wondered if the sample might be bad, as we now know it was.