Guest columnist Deacon David E. Pierce makes the case that treating religious relics as scientific evidence is a mistake, and why he thinks Leonardo da Vinci may have created the Shroud
Whoa! The Catholic Church is nothing but an organized crime family, a racket, and a con-game. Nothing it says on any subject can be believed. There is no basis for any ''faith'', with or without alleged ''evidence''. Europe in the Middle Ages was full of claimed relics, fragments of wood from the Cross, nails used in it, etc., and the only thing unusual about this one is that some superstitious folks are still foolish enough to believe it when most of the other fakes have been forgotten.
There is no need to bother with mind games like ''How was it done?'' or ''Who did it?''. It was a fake in an age of such fakes.
First, per Andrea Nicoletti, a professor friend of Massimo Pigliucci’s, it’s highly unlikely that Leonardo created the Shroud of Turin.
Second, and riffing on that piece by Massimo, why is Shermer posting something like this, which is essentially Steve Gould’s “non-overlapping magisteria,” something I generally reject? Given Shermer’s lack of skepticism several years ago, over a household radio shortly after his marriage ceremony, it’s another reason to wonder just how skeptical he is at times.
There are several elements woven throughout this article that lack coherence and logical consistency.
1) The Integrity of Leonardo Da Vinci
Dr. David E. Pierce makes a curious assertion regarding Leonardo Da Vinci, quoting him as saying, "Many have made a trade of delusions and false miracles, deceiving the stupid multitudes." It seems that throughout this piece, he endeavours to suggest a paradoxical integrity toward Da Vinci while simultaneously positing that Da Vinci orchestrated a grand deception via the Shroud. If Da Vinci truly held disdain for such duplicitous practices, one would think he might have taken the opportunity to clarify, perhaps by boldly proclaiming, “I crafted this; you simple-minded fools.” This certainly raises questions about your integrity, Dr. Pierce. With your advanced academic credentials, one would anticipate a bit more clarity and reasoning.
2) Carbon Dating
I see no reason to doubt that the segment of the Shroud analyzed through carbon dating indeed dates back to somewhere between 1260 and 1390 AD. This establishes that at the very least, the fibers in question were in existence during that timeframe. Da Vinci's birth occurred in 1452, with his earliest known works emerging in 1473, after training as an apprentice beginning in 1466. Therefore, we are referencing a minimum gap of 76 years. Given your Ph.D., one might hope for a sharper analysis of this timeline.
3) Historical Record
Historical documentation places the Shroud in Lirey, France, in the 1350s. If we are to place faith in these records, which conveniently align with carbon dating results, it becomes evident that Da Vinci did not yet inhabit the world. It would seem that a deeper level of critical thought is warranted here, especially from someone with your academic pedigree. It is worth noting that the authenticity of the shroud was in question back in 1389 by Bishop Pierre D'Arcis claiming the shroud to be a painting and therefore a fake relic. Pope Clement VII in hearing this came to the conclusion that the Shroud could be displayed but with the stipulation that it could not be claimed as the true Shroud of Christ. Just for anyone who thinks that they are clever in claiming it to be a fake. Your not clever.
4) Blood Samples
In 1978, blood samples were extracted from the Shroud, introducing yet another layer of complexity to this debate. These findings undermine the claim that the Church is hindered in promoting such research. As noted by Dr. Pierce, “I’d especially like to know if traces of silver would be found throughout the fabric, especially on the image, or perhaps some other photosensitive chemical.” Dr. Pierce, the specimens currently lie within labs, ripe for analysis with cutting-edge technology. If researchers successfully retrieved blood samples, one must assume they would also have the ability to identify any potential photosensitive chemical residues in the test specimens. Additionally, the 1978 study explicitly stated the absence of sufficient pigments or dyes to account for the image. With Dr. Pierce's impressive qualifications, one would expect a baseline of critical thinking, wouldn’t one?
5) Why Leonardo da Vinci?
The principle of camera obscura has been around since the 4 century BC. Why choose Leonardo Da Vinci when it so easily refutable with the previous 4 points. The notion that it had to da Vinci is because he used this principle is weaker than the evidence claiming the shroud to be authentic. It is indeed disappointing that an individual of Dr. Pierce's considerable academic pedigree seems to prioritize rhetoric over logic in their argumentation. One would expect a more nuanced and reasoned approach from someone with such a rigorous intellectual background.
Apart from the particularly inconvenient realities that confront us, it is entirely plausible that Leonardo da Vinci could have been the creator of the Shroud. To echo your sentiments, David E. Pierce, Ph.D., I wholeheartedly agree that the rhetoric against evolution from certain Catholic circles must be challenged because one truth cannot contradict another truth. However, your own dismissal of incontrovertible facts in this context renders your critique of those individuals as utterly pathetic. It appears that your approach, Dr. Pierce, may reflect a similar pattern observed among certain anti-evolutionists, in that there seems to be a lack of thorough and rigorous engagement with the subject matter at hand. It would seem that a modicum of critical thinking might enhance the discourse surrounding this topic, particularly coming from someone of your academic stature.
As a Catholic who contemplates the possibilities surrounding the authenticity of the Shroud, I maintain that my belief should not hinge solely on claims of miraculous provenance. Should it be conclusively shown that the Shroud does not align with the assertions of many, that revelation would not be a cause for concern. Rather, those who have heralded it as a genuine relic would merely need to acknowledge their interpretive missteps and perhaps refer to it simply as an icon instead.
Michael Shermer, it’s perplexing that you position yourself as a skeptic while presenting work that seems devoid of rigorous critical analysis. This approach diminishes your credibility and borders on cynicism. One must wonder whether there lies an ulterior motive behind such assertions. In contrast, I have endeavored to embody true skepticism by not only challenging the authors claims with evidence that explicitly contradicts them but also by avoiding the trap of fabricating narratives that serve a preconceived bias. All I implore you to do, Michael, is to embody the honesty you advocate so passionately in your discourse with others.
As a Catholic, I have no idea if the Shroud is what it is purported to be, and find that whether it is or not to be irrelevant to my faith. Having seen "Veronica's veil" in the Hapsburg collection and knowing that there are several others out there, as a skeptic I have to say that most at least of these relics are unproven, and whether someone wishes to believe or not is up to them and their faith. I do believe that the Shroud can be dated in multiple ways to before Leonardo, and so whether it is a creation of the time of the Caesars or the 1200s, it certainly predates the Renaissance. But strange things can happen-- Brownian motion in a key, if all the molecules vibrate in the correct way, can cause it to jump into a lock-- while the odds are incredibly small, and some may refuse to use the word "miracle," many things have occurred that, while natur
The concept of the god is dead in Western civilization. It can not be revived anymore. But we have to admit we need a religion. An idea of endless pursuit. We are in state of mid roman empire the old gods are not working. The ritual is alive but juice is gone. What will take a place of concept of the god? In tha age of "AI"
I think the Shroud of Turin is cool simply because we don't know how it was made or by whom, kind of the same interest I have in the pyramids of Giza or the Nazca lines. I've always wondered about people who take certain relics or objects to heart, most of them are going to keep being Catholic even if the Shroud was proven true or false.
I get it though, faith is difficult, especially if you have no physical manifestation of that belief. Without something to focus on it could get real easy to wander off although if you focus too much on a particular object I imagine you could also easily find yourself astray.
I have had considerable experience in making pinhole camera images using photographic processes. Even if the maker has a knowledge of photosensitive chemicals, from my experience this is not credible at all.
Even the (disputed) carbon dating of the Shroud from ~1978 placed the assayed fibers two centuries prior to Leonardo's birth. Would not da Vinci been reluctant in any case to commit a fraud upon the common folk? I am skeptical that he would be its creator.
Whoa! The Catholic Church is nothing but an organized crime family, a racket, and a con-game. Nothing it says on any subject can be believed. There is no basis for any ''faith'', with or without alleged ''evidence''. Europe in the Middle Ages was full of claimed relics, fragments of wood from the Cross, nails used in it, etc., and the only thing unusual about this one is that some superstitious folks are still foolish enough to believe it when most of the other fakes have been forgotten.
There is no need to bother with mind games like ''How was it done?'' or ''Who did it?''. It was a fake in an age of such fakes.
First, per Andrea Nicoletti, a professor friend of Massimo Pigliucci’s, it’s highly unlikely that Leonardo created the Shroud of Turin.
Second, and riffing on that piece by Massimo, why is Shermer posting something like this, which is essentially Steve Gould’s “non-overlapping magisteria,” something I generally reject? Given Shermer’s lack of skepticism several years ago, over a household radio shortly after his marriage ceremony, it’s another reason to wonder just how skeptical he is at times.
https://figsinwintertime.substack.com/p/the-shroud-of-turin-and-the-nature
There are several elements woven throughout this article that lack coherence and logical consistency.
1) The Integrity of Leonardo Da Vinci
Dr. David E. Pierce makes a curious assertion regarding Leonardo Da Vinci, quoting him as saying, "Many have made a trade of delusions and false miracles, deceiving the stupid multitudes." It seems that throughout this piece, he endeavours to suggest a paradoxical integrity toward Da Vinci while simultaneously positing that Da Vinci orchestrated a grand deception via the Shroud. If Da Vinci truly held disdain for such duplicitous practices, one would think he might have taken the opportunity to clarify, perhaps by boldly proclaiming, “I crafted this; you simple-minded fools.” This certainly raises questions about your integrity, Dr. Pierce. With your advanced academic credentials, one would anticipate a bit more clarity and reasoning.
2) Carbon Dating
I see no reason to doubt that the segment of the Shroud analyzed through carbon dating indeed dates back to somewhere between 1260 and 1390 AD. This establishes that at the very least, the fibers in question were in existence during that timeframe. Da Vinci's birth occurred in 1452, with his earliest known works emerging in 1473, after training as an apprentice beginning in 1466. Therefore, we are referencing a minimum gap of 76 years. Given your Ph.D., one might hope for a sharper analysis of this timeline.
3) Historical Record
Historical documentation places the Shroud in Lirey, France, in the 1350s. If we are to place faith in these records, which conveniently align with carbon dating results, it becomes evident that Da Vinci did not yet inhabit the world. It would seem that a deeper level of critical thought is warranted here, especially from someone with your academic pedigree. It is worth noting that the authenticity of the shroud was in question back in 1389 by Bishop Pierre D'Arcis claiming the shroud to be a painting and therefore a fake relic. Pope Clement VII in hearing this came to the conclusion that the Shroud could be displayed but with the stipulation that it could not be claimed as the true Shroud of Christ. Just for anyone who thinks that they are clever in claiming it to be a fake. Your not clever.
4) Blood Samples
In 1978, blood samples were extracted from the Shroud, introducing yet another layer of complexity to this debate. These findings undermine the claim that the Church is hindered in promoting such research. As noted by Dr. Pierce, “I’d especially like to know if traces of silver would be found throughout the fabric, especially on the image, or perhaps some other photosensitive chemical.” Dr. Pierce, the specimens currently lie within labs, ripe for analysis with cutting-edge technology. If researchers successfully retrieved blood samples, one must assume they would also have the ability to identify any potential photosensitive chemical residues in the test specimens. Additionally, the 1978 study explicitly stated the absence of sufficient pigments or dyes to account for the image. With Dr. Pierce's impressive qualifications, one would expect a baseline of critical thinking, wouldn’t one?
5) Why Leonardo da Vinci?
The principle of camera obscura has been around since the 4 century BC. Why choose Leonardo Da Vinci when it so easily refutable with the previous 4 points. The notion that it had to da Vinci is because he used this principle is weaker than the evidence claiming the shroud to be authentic. It is indeed disappointing that an individual of Dr. Pierce's considerable academic pedigree seems to prioritize rhetoric over logic in their argumentation. One would expect a more nuanced and reasoned approach from someone with such a rigorous intellectual background.
Apart from the particularly inconvenient realities that confront us, it is entirely plausible that Leonardo da Vinci could have been the creator of the Shroud. To echo your sentiments, David E. Pierce, Ph.D., I wholeheartedly agree that the rhetoric against evolution from certain Catholic circles must be challenged because one truth cannot contradict another truth. However, your own dismissal of incontrovertible facts in this context renders your critique of those individuals as utterly pathetic. It appears that your approach, Dr. Pierce, may reflect a similar pattern observed among certain anti-evolutionists, in that there seems to be a lack of thorough and rigorous engagement with the subject matter at hand. It would seem that a modicum of critical thinking might enhance the discourse surrounding this topic, particularly coming from someone of your academic stature.
As a Catholic who contemplates the possibilities surrounding the authenticity of the Shroud, I maintain that my belief should not hinge solely on claims of miraculous provenance. Should it be conclusively shown that the Shroud does not align with the assertions of many, that revelation would not be a cause for concern. Rather, those who have heralded it as a genuine relic would merely need to acknowledge their interpretive missteps and perhaps refer to it simply as an icon instead.
Michael Shermer, it’s perplexing that you position yourself as a skeptic while presenting work that seems devoid of rigorous critical analysis. This approach diminishes your credibility and borders on cynicism. One must wonder whether there lies an ulterior motive behind such assertions. In contrast, I have endeavored to embody true skepticism by not only challenging the authors claims with evidence that explicitly contradicts them but also by avoiding the trap of fabricating narratives that serve a preconceived bias. All I implore you to do, Michael, is to embody the honesty you advocate so passionately in your discourse with others.
As a Catholic, I have no idea if the Shroud is what it is purported to be, and find that whether it is or not to be irrelevant to my faith. Having seen "Veronica's veil" in the Hapsburg collection and knowing that there are several others out there, as a skeptic I have to say that most at least of these relics are unproven, and whether someone wishes to believe or not is up to them and their faith. I do believe that the Shroud can be dated in multiple ways to before Leonardo, and so whether it is a creation of the time of the Caesars or the 1200s, it certainly predates the Renaissance. But strange things can happen-- Brownian motion in a key, if all the molecules vibrate in the correct way, can cause it to jump into a lock-- while the odds are incredibly small, and some may refuse to use the word "miracle," many things have occurred that, while natur
The concept of the god is dead in Western civilization. It can not be revived anymore. But we have to admit we need a religion. An idea of endless pursuit. We are in state of mid roman empire the old gods are not working. The ritual is alive but juice is gone. What will take a place of concept of the god? In tha age of "AI"
I think the Shroud of Turin is cool simply because we don't know how it was made or by whom, kind of the same interest I have in the pyramids of Giza or the Nazca lines. I've always wondered about people who take certain relics or objects to heart, most of them are going to keep being Catholic even if the Shroud was proven true or false.
I get it though, faith is difficult, especially if you have no physical manifestation of that belief. Without something to focus on it could get real easy to wander off although if you focus too much on a particular object I imagine you could also easily find yourself astray.
I have had considerable experience in making pinhole camera images using photographic processes. Even if the maker has a knowledge of photosensitive chemicals, from my experience this is not credible at all.
But you're not Leonardo Da Vinci.
(Just messing. I have no idea who created the shroud.)
Even the (disputed) carbon dating of the Shroud from ~1978 placed the assayed fibers two centuries prior to Leonardo's birth. Would not da Vinci been reluctant in any case to commit a fraud upon the common folk? I am skeptical that he would be its creator.