A reader writes:
K.C. has replied. Did you see it. No longer being able to call the Shroud a fake, he has decided to call you one. It is both funny and sad that he should say that since you do not see enough evidence to conclusively prove the shroud is a fake that you think it is real. If anything, my biggest complaint about you is that you are not enough this way.
Yes, he sent me an email to let me know that he had replied. But thanks. I haven’t had a chance to do anything but give it a quick read. I don’t know if it warrants a response after he wrote to me saying:
You said that you too were once a skeptic of the shroud, and I don’t think that I truly believe you, otherwise you still would be.
That makes me what?
So the basis for determining if Dan is a skeptic of the Shroud or not is NOT anything to do with examining the data but K.C.’s educated opinion? Gosh, what a great system!
If you read my post I did not call anyone a fake, and I think that the reader who posted here, as well as the above commenter, has gotten confused with what I mean by skepticism.
First, the reader is making a mistake. Dan Porter, the author of this blog, explicitly states that since there is not conclusive evidence, that “a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.” So yes, even though Dan does not have evidence of authenticity either way, he asserts that it is authentic. And I think that this is a non-skeptical assertion from a foundation of Christian belief. This is why I have replied in the manner in which I did on my blog, where I argue for a natural, non-authentic, conclusion. I still would like to know what your (reader and Dan) thoughts would be on the shroud if you were not Christians.
Secondly, Joe Marino says:
“So the basis for determining if Dan is a skeptic of the Shroud or not is NOT anything to do with examining the data but K.C.’s educated opinion? Gosh, what a great system!”
Thanks for considering my opinion educated, but the sarcasm is palpable and unneeded. Further, Dan is not a skeptic of the shroud. He said that he once was, and that he since has made a (presumably) faith-based conclusion about its authenticity. This is not my opinion, Dan says so right in the “About the Author” tab.
Also, what is all this “data”? From what I have read, and what Dan has stated as well, there is not enough evidence to make a determination either way (and this is why I advocate skepticism). There is no positive, conclusive, “smoking gun”. It is more reasonable then, I think, to remain skeptical, and not make faith-based assumptions. So no, Dan is not a skeptic of the shroud because there is not enough evidence to not be a skeptic, and he has stated that he is not a skeptic outright. This was not my opinion.