I have a different question about the psychology of human belief: why are most people deliberately selective about how and when they embrace belief as valid, and when they at least claim to support rational objectivity, aka "science", over belief?
To provide a deliberately provocative example, why do so many American liberals dismiss Christian theology, including relics like the shroud, and its utility as a foundation for morality and politics, but then embrace Native American religion and all their associated totems, and eagerly create laws and policies in accordance with those animist beliefs? Is this an expression of more fundamental human desire for political advantage, or just an expression of typically irrational and inconsistent human psychology?
Can you name liberals who believe in Native American religion (other than some Native Americans) and name the laws and policies you claim are based on animist beliefs? Thank you.
There is a rock called ''The Devil's Nose, in Wyoming that is no longer open for rock climbers because a tribe complained that it is sacred in their religion. The Park Service then banned anyone from climbing it.
Members of the Hopi tribe are allowed to take baby eagles, a protected species, from a National Monument, a protected area, for rituals that violate animal cruelty laws.
There are numerous other examples of laws that grant special privileges to Indians on reliigious grounds.
I think you are a little unjust. “Embrace” does not mean “believe”, and “in accordance with” does not mean “based on”. The final question - “political advantage, or… irrational… psychology” - is real and important.
That actually may be the shroud of Judas. When the Disciples found out that he was the one who squealed on Jesus, they were pretty upset. So, after the Last Supper, the disciples decided to send Jesus to India with his pregnant girlfriend, Mary Magdalene. Then they got Judas really drunk, dressed him up and put on some makeup to made him look like JC (the guards didn’t know what Jesus looked like anyway.) They then presented Judas for execution with him mumbling incoherently.
Meanwhile, Jesus and Mary got to India, learned to speak Hindi, had a couple of kids, established a Kashmir sweater company and lived happily thereafter. In fact, you can see Jesus’s grave, called the Roza Bal Shrine, in downtown Srinagar, India. There is a small charge.
''Jesus'' is a fictional character, no more real or relevant than any character in a comic book. There is no more need to debunk any claims by the Roman Catholic Church than to analyze the physics of Superman's powers. The RCC is a scam, a racket, and an organized crime gang and anyone who believes in ANYTHING it preaches is a victim of a severe neurosis.
That said, the radio carbon method of dating is seriously flawed and cannot be relied upon. There is no evidence, only an assumption, that there has been no extra carbon added to the earth's atmosphere in the recent past. And even if it were shown to be true that the amount of radio carbon in the atmosphere has remained constant, it is also an unproven assumption that radioactive materials lose their radioactivity at a fixed rate.
It is absolutely not an unproven assumption that radioactive particles decay as a constant rate. We've been studying this for over 100 years and all evidence indicates that this is in fact a constant. What evidence do YOU have that two samples of the same radioactive element will decay at different rates?
It’s not just Christians. A few years back, we visited the relic museum at the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul. They had “Moses’ staff” (a wooden stick) and “Abraham’s mixing bowl” (an old stone bowl) on display. Possibly more authentic were some hairs from Mohammed’s beard and his sword.
(It’s also kind of cool to see the Sultan’s sit-down toilet (the ultimate status symbol of the time?), in the breezeway just off of the harem courtyard.)
“For over a decade I have devoted myself to studying the Shroud of Turin…” Sledgehammer and nut spring to mind. Still, such publications are a nice little earner, apparently.
"A nice little earner" are perhaps the tabloid books and possibly the dozens of books published on the Shroud, repeating always the same things. A 500-page study based on first-hand investigations on each topic, i.e. an academic book, does not bring any kind of profit. As for "sledgehammer and nut", respectfully, I think you are not clear what the purpose of historical research is.
I wrote a long reply, but it seems to have disappeared. However, I stick to my guns. Ten years on the Shroud - especially for a bona fide academic - is a disproportionate response to one more example among many of human folly. I presume the pricing decision (less than 1/3 of the previous publication) will attract obsessive shrouders to buy. I understand the purpose of historical research. My concern is with its value. I collect such curiosities - Altantean theories, Velikovsky, megalithic science, Kaspar Hauser, Pyramidology… some of it from reputable academics (Fred Hoyle, Clube and Napier, Cyrus H Gordon)… though none of the latter seemed to have spent a decade on such stuff.
Ten years was the minimum time needed to read all the publications on the subject, which are a disproportionate number, and verify all the documents; and also I had to made researches around Europe, transcribe and then translate manuscripts from Italian, Latin, Greek, old French. Since many authors in the past have written about it without accuracy, all statements must be verified one by one. The Shroud of Turin has existed for ca 700 years, but other shrouds have existed for at least 1400 years, and the Gospels were written in the 1st century. There is literature spanning 2000 years, that I had to study. If you want to do serious work, this is the time needed (taking into account the fact that these years also served to work on the Edessa Mandylion and on the Templars and their trial, who were involved in the affair, as well as on Roman crucifixion techniques and on the evangelical stories regarding the passion of Christ). I believe that work of this kind has its value. It doesn't matter at all if you consider this "an example among many of human folly": history is full of what you consider human follies, which are important on a historiographical and also conceptual level. Marc Bloch wrote his best book, to which he dedicated an enormous amount of work, on the idea that touching the king of France cured skin diseases, and there are important books on the crown of thorns of Jesus, which are useful works for understanding the mentality of medieval man and French society during the monarchy. The examples you give me (Velikovsky, megalithic science, Kaspar Hauser, Pyramidology) are not at all comparable: they are things invented in the 19th or 20th century, people completely out of their world, with a much shorter history and from a historical point of view much less interesting, if not to make a history of bizarre beliefs. The relics of Jesus, including that of Turin, serve to reconstruct almost two millennia of theology, of the idea of the sacred, of the political and social use of beliefs. The history of the shroud involves dukes, princes, sovereigns and popes, not just some gullible fool; scientific articles are published on this topic every year. Maybe in 600 years someone will take ten years to write a book on the history of Pyramidology, if it still exists and if it has had some relevance. The historiographical relevance of an argument is not measured through the credibility of the argument. My first work was on exorcism in Christian antiquity (600 pages for two centuries of history) and the reality of the possessed is not different from the reality of certain relics.
As for the price of books, my expensive books depend on the type of publishing house, and I don't earn a single cent on them. The book we are talking about here, however, costs at least twice as much as the books normally dedicated to this topic that you can find on Amazon. Allow me to say that there is a big difference though.
“Velikovsky, megalithic science…Pyramidology” are not modern inventions. They are continuations of ancient speculations and superstitions. Just as the Turin Shroud story moved into the modern age of carbon dating, etc, so the Stonehenge story moved into the modern age of computing, with reputable astronomers and physicists (Gerald Hawkins, and then Fred Hoyle). That story is an update of a tale going back to Hecateus of Abdera, a historian whose floruit was around 300 BC. I know that, for obvious cultural reasons, stories of miracles and relics legitimised by past Popes are regarded as important in Italy (and other Catholic countries). I had a brief correspondence with an academic in Bergamo many years ago. The contact was that I read something of his in a Velikovsky-inspired journal, and criticised it. His obsession was the veracity of the Three Secrets of Fatima (and, therefore, the truth of the vision of St Mary and the angels). I realised that he had written hoping for confirmatory comment and incapable of accepting skepticism. Well, that’s not so relevant here, but the serious approach - pro or con - to miracles and other matters of faith, is very relevant. Personally, I am an atheist but nevertheless very sympathetic in general terms to religious commitment. Any atheist must admit religion as (until recently) a practically universal human dimension. All religions presumably share some universal questions. Whether they share any valid hint of an answer is worthy of consideration. My apologies for the impression I gave on the issue of money. Dr Johnson famously said that any writer who does not write for money “is a blockhead”. I was not criticising the motive - just speculating on how you would justify to yourself such expenditure of time. It seems to me that esoteric controversies like the shroud drag on and on like some kind of folie à deux, each side feeding on the other.
“Velikovsky, megalithic science…pyramidology” are partly continuations of ancient speculations and superstitions, but I don't think they can boast of continuity and important attention throughout history. I am sure that the cult of relics has had a much greater social impact than the one you are referring to. But for my part, I have no problem if someone "writes a 500 page book on full mythology", if they do it well. For me, almost every topic is worthy of study. I consider it equally normal for a European to study things that happened in Europe (even if only because you have to go in person to find the documents). As for the academic from Bergamo obsessed with the three secrets of Fatima, I'm sorry, but as you know in every field there are strange people. I guess he was not a historian of Christianity. Fatima is also a topic that deserves serious study. As for the question of money, and especially the waste of time: I am paid by my university to study and teach, for me it is not a waste of time. I find it very entertaining and informative. For example, I can say that the sindonology is a perfect example of pseudoscience, and educationally useful. Perhaps you are right about the fact that esoteric controversies are folies à deux, but when 90% of the literature on a certain topic is pseudoscientific, it is a moral and civic duty to propose another vision and above all to debunk the false informations. IMHO...
I am sympathetic to your last point, but I don’t think the force of an argument is measured by the word count of the literature. We cannot be hostages to the outpourings of delusional wannabe “experts”. Some people you can tell just don’t stay told.
I take your point about “social impact”. What proportion of your the word count in your 500 pages is on social impact, do you think? Perhaps I was misled by Michael Shermer’s account into thinking your major thrust was to debunk nonsense. Always a hazard when remarking on a book one hasn’t read. Mea culpability.
I have a different question about the psychology of human belief: why are most people deliberately selective about how and when they embrace belief as valid, and when they at least claim to support rational objectivity, aka "science", over belief?
To provide a deliberately provocative example, why do so many American liberals dismiss Christian theology, including relics like the shroud, and its utility as a foundation for morality and politics, but then embrace Native American religion and all their associated totems, and eagerly create laws and policies in accordance with those animist beliefs? Is this an expression of more fundamental human desire for political advantage, or just an expression of typically irrational and inconsistent human psychology?
Do Native Americans worship old bones?What are some relics they prey over in their culture and where are the shrines they make pilgrimages to?
...read:pray over......
Can you name liberals who believe in Native American religion (other than some Native Americans) and name the laws and policies you claim are based on animist beliefs? Thank you.
There is a rock called ''The Devil's Nose, in Wyoming that is no longer open for rock climbers because a tribe complained that it is sacred in their religion. The Park Service then banned anyone from climbing it.
Members of the Hopi tribe are allowed to take baby eagles, a protected species, from a National Monument, a protected area, for rituals that violate animal cruelty laws.
There are numerous other examples of laws that grant special privileges to Indians on reliigious grounds.
I think you are a little unjust. “Embrace” does not mean “believe”, and “in accordance with” does not mean “based on”. The final question - “political advantage, or… irrational… psychology” - is real and important.
That actually may be the shroud of Judas. When the Disciples found out that he was the one who squealed on Jesus, they were pretty upset. So, after the Last Supper, the disciples decided to send Jesus to India with his pregnant girlfriend, Mary Magdalene. Then they got Judas really drunk, dressed him up and put on some makeup to made him look like JC (the guards didn’t know what Jesus looked like anyway.) They then presented Judas for execution with him mumbling incoherently.
Meanwhile, Jesus and Mary got to India, learned to speak Hindi, had a couple of kids, established a Kashmir sweater company and lived happily thereafter. In fact, you can see Jesus’s grave, called the Roza Bal Shrine, in downtown Srinagar, India. There is a small charge.
Massimo Pigliucci is a philosopher of science, not a historian of science... :)
Well written. Thoroughly enjoyed reading the arguments. The Shroud is a 14 Century relict.
Just a quibble - relict means widow🤣
''Jesus'' is a fictional character, no more real or relevant than any character in a comic book. There is no more need to debunk any claims by the Roman Catholic Church than to analyze the physics of Superman's powers. The RCC is a scam, a racket, and an organized crime gang and anyone who believes in ANYTHING it preaches is a victim of a severe neurosis.
That said, the radio carbon method of dating is seriously flawed and cannot be relied upon. There is no evidence, only an assumption, that there has been no extra carbon added to the earth's atmosphere in the recent past. And even if it were shown to be true that the amount of radio carbon in the atmosphere has remained constant, it is also an unproven assumption that radioactive materials lose their radioactivity at a fixed rate.
It is absolutely not an unproven assumption that radioactive particles decay as a constant rate. We've been studying this for over 100 years and all evidence indicates that this is in fact a constant. What evidence do YOU have that two samples of the same radioactive element will decay at different rates?
It’s not just Christians. A few years back, we visited the relic museum at the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul. They had “Moses’ staff” (a wooden stick) and “Abraham’s mixing bowl” (an old stone bowl) on display. Possibly more authentic were some hairs from Mohammed’s beard and his sword.
(It’s also kind of cool to see the Sultan’s sit-down toilet (the ultimate status symbol of the time?), in the breezeway just off of the harem courtyard.)
“For over a decade I have devoted myself to studying the Shroud of Turin…” Sledgehammer and nut spring to mind. Still, such publications are a nice little earner, apparently.
"A nice little earner" are perhaps the tabloid books and possibly the dozens of books published on the Shroud, repeating always the same things. A 500-page study based on first-hand investigations on each topic, i.e. an academic book, does not bring any kind of profit. As for "sledgehammer and nut", respectfully, I think you are not clear what the purpose of historical research is.
I wrote a long reply, but it seems to have disappeared. However, I stick to my guns. Ten years on the Shroud - especially for a bona fide academic - is a disproportionate response to one more example among many of human folly. I presume the pricing decision (less than 1/3 of the previous publication) will attract obsessive shrouders to buy. I understand the purpose of historical research. My concern is with its value. I collect such curiosities - Altantean theories, Velikovsky, megalithic science, Kaspar Hauser, Pyramidology… some of it from reputable academics (Fred Hoyle, Clube and Napier, Cyrus H Gordon)… though none of the latter seemed to have spent a decade on such stuff.
Ten years was the minimum time needed to read all the publications on the subject, which are a disproportionate number, and verify all the documents; and also I had to made researches around Europe, transcribe and then translate manuscripts from Italian, Latin, Greek, old French. Since many authors in the past have written about it without accuracy, all statements must be verified one by one. The Shroud of Turin has existed for ca 700 years, but other shrouds have existed for at least 1400 years, and the Gospels were written in the 1st century. There is literature spanning 2000 years, that I had to study. If you want to do serious work, this is the time needed (taking into account the fact that these years also served to work on the Edessa Mandylion and on the Templars and their trial, who were involved in the affair, as well as on Roman crucifixion techniques and on the evangelical stories regarding the passion of Christ). I believe that work of this kind has its value. It doesn't matter at all if you consider this "an example among many of human folly": history is full of what you consider human follies, which are important on a historiographical and also conceptual level. Marc Bloch wrote his best book, to which he dedicated an enormous amount of work, on the idea that touching the king of France cured skin diseases, and there are important books on the crown of thorns of Jesus, which are useful works for understanding the mentality of medieval man and French society during the monarchy. The examples you give me (Velikovsky, megalithic science, Kaspar Hauser, Pyramidology) are not at all comparable: they are things invented in the 19th or 20th century, people completely out of their world, with a much shorter history and from a historical point of view much less interesting, if not to make a history of bizarre beliefs. The relics of Jesus, including that of Turin, serve to reconstruct almost two millennia of theology, of the idea of the sacred, of the political and social use of beliefs. The history of the shroud involves dukes, princes, sovereigns and popes, not just some gullible fool; scientific articles are published on this topic every year. Maybe in 600 years someone will take ten years to write a book on the history of Pyramidology, if it still exists and if it has had some relevance. The historiographical relevance of an argument is not measured through the credibility of the argument. My first work was on exorcism in Christian antiquity (600 pages for two centuries of history) and the reality of the possessed is not different from the reality of certain relics.
As for the price of books, my expensive books depend on the type of publishing house, and I don't earn a single cent on them. The book we are talking about here, however, costs at least twice as much as the books normally dedicated to this topic that you can find on Amazon. Allow me to say that there is a big difference though.
“Velikovsky, megalithic science…Pyramidology” are not modern inventions. They are continuations of ancient speculations and superstitions. Just as the Turin Shroud story moved into the modern age of carbon dating, etc, so the Stonehenge story moved into the modern age of computing, with reputable astronomers and physicists (Gerald Hawkins, and then Fred Hoyle). That story is an update of a tale going back to Hecateus of Abdera, a historian whose floruit was around 300 BC. I know that, for obvious cultural reasons, stories of miracles and relics legitimised by past Popes are regarded as important in Italy (and other Catholic countries). I had a brief correspondence with an academic in Bergamo many years ago. The contact was that I read something of his in a Velikovsky-inspired journal, and criticised it. His obsession was the veracity of the Three Secrets of Fatima (and, therefore, the truth of the vision of St Mary and the angels). I realised that he had written hoping for confirmatory comment and incapable of accepting skepticism. Well, that’s not so relevant here, but the serious approach - pro or con - to miracles and other matters of faith, is very relevant. Personally, I am an atheist but nevertheless very sympathetic in general terms to religious commitment. Any atheist must admit religion as (until recently) a practically universal human dimension. All religions presumably share some universal questions. Whether they share any valid hint of an answer is worthy of consideration. My apologies for the impression I gave on the issue of money. Dr Johnson famously said that any writer who does not write for money “is a blockhead”. I was not criticising the motive - just speculating on how you would justify to yourself such expenditure of time. It seems to me that esoteric controversies like the shroud drag on and on like some kind of folie à deux, each side feeding on the other.
“Velikovsky, megalithic science…pyramidology” are partly continuations of ancient speculations and superstitions, but I don't think they can boast of continuity and important attention throughout history. I am sure that the cult of relics has had a much greater social impact than the one you are referring to. But for my part, I have no problem if someone "writes a 500 page book on full mythology", if they do it well. For me, almost every topic is worthy of study. I consider it equally normal for a European to study things that happened in Europe (even if only because you have to go in person to find the documents). As for the academic from Bergamo obsessed with the three secrets of Fatima, I'm sorry, but as you know in every field there are strange people. I guess he was not a historian of Christianity. Fatima is also a topic that deserves serious study. As for the question of money, and especially the waste of time: I am paid by my university to study and teach, for me it is not a waste of time. I find it very entertaining and informative. For example, I can say that the sindonology is a perfect example of pseudoscience, and educationally useful. Perhaps you are right about the fact that esoteric controversies are folies à deux, but when 90% of the literature on a certain topic is pseudoscientific, it is a moral and civic duty to propose another vision and above all to debunk the false informations. IMHO...
I am sympathetic to your last point, but I don’t think the force of an argument is measured by the word count of the literature. We cannot be hostages to the outpourings of delusional wannabe “experts”. Some people you can tell just don’t stay told.
I take your point about “social impact”. What proportion of your the word count in your 500 pages is on social impact, do you think? Perhaps I was misled by Michael Shermer’s account into thinking your major thrust was to debunk nonsense. Always a hazard when remarking on a book one hasn’t read. Mea culpability.