Is my mind closed? Or is it the other guy?

imageThis morning, I received an email from a “committed skeptic” who told me it is only a matter of time until someone “really figures out” how the shroud’s image was formed. “When that happens,” he wrote, “you will have absolute proof that [the shroud] is a forgery. That is the only assertion acceptable to science.”

The only assertion acceptable to science? Really?

I was reminded of an exchange of emails I had with Ray Rogers in  December of 2004. I mentioned to him that I get significant numbers of emails from the “lunatic fringe.”

I WROTE:  Ray, you wrote [in a previous email]: "Apparently no amount of physical law or illustration can successfully argue against a strong desire to prove the resurrection facts or not."

Sadly, it cuts both ways. . .

His reply was classic, Rogers. Two paragraphs, in particular, were priceless. In the first he  responded to me about a similar email he received with a new explanation for the images:

ROGERS WROTE:  Yes. I get lots of lunatic-fringe mail too – – – and telephone calls. Some of the calls come in the middle of the night…perhaps catalyzed by too much Pinot Noir. My favorite was a guy who pointed out that when you cover a "daid boddie" with a cloth, the flies come to the smell. "They poke their little noses through the cloth. And you know what flies leave – – – little black specks. "Jest look at that image real close, and you will see that it is made up of a whole bunch of fly specks." By that time I was rolling on the floor, and I couldn’t answer him.

The next paragraph below was in response to the fact that

I WROTE:  . . . a distinguished Yale research biologist, told me recently, ‘It’s art. I can see that it’s art. There is no amount of scientific fact that could convince me otherwise.’

Ray’s response:

ROGERS WROTE:  Like you, I had one of the top (Manhattan Project) scientists (and a staunch Episcopalian) at the Laboratory tell me, "Ray, even if you prove that thing is real, I won’t believe it." Many people do not stop to wonder what "real" means in the context of the Shroud.

Is my mind closed? Or is it the other guy?

3 thoughts on “Is my mind closed? Or is it the other guy?”

  1. “… only assertion acceptable to science.” ???? If “science” has already DETERMINED the outcome or results of the research … then that is some really bad science.

    These skeptics say the word “science” as if it actually means something. They indicate that “Science” has the only true answers. “Science” is the only objective source of knowledge. Well, if “Science” is deliberately BIASED in its perspective, then I would say that such “Science” is completely worthless. And yet, this guy is willing to place the worth of his eternal soul on such wobbly foundations as Science with an Agenda?

    Science is bad enough even when it DOESN’T have an agenda!! Fifty years ago “Science” told us all to eat oleomargarine because butter was bad for us. Recently they determined that oleo might be worse than butter because it has “bad” cholesterols and butter has “good” cholesterols. Thank goodness I never gave up butter, it would have been 50 years wasted.

    They also told us that chocolate and coffee were bad for us but have recently decided otherwise. Thank goodness I’m committed to my evil vices… which it turns out were not so evil after all. In fact, it might even be healthy to eat chocolate, drink coffee and smear real butter on my bread… in moderation. Obviously Science does not know everything, and to depend entirely on the wisdom of Science is, well, it’s a little astonishing.

    The skeptics hold up Science as if it’s the ultimate virtue, but it doesn’t even take close inspection or analysis to know that the wisdom such Skeptics rely on is all an enormous crutch or diversion. They use it to skitter away from facing the real Truth.

    The poor, sorry Skeptics have no idea how foolish they sound to people who know their God and walk with Him every day. I am alarmed for their future, I can actually see them cowering before God’s wrath someday and I wish I could turn them from it — but there seems to be very little we can say or do that will make a difference.

    For one thing, they lack honesty. I’ve heard of a few who HONESTLY dug into research and learned some things. One guy was intent on discrediting the Resurrection of Christ and set out to prove it never happened. Instead, he became impressed by the fact that every one of the 11 disciples who knew Christ during His ministry suffered hideous tortures: and all but one died as martyrs. He concluded that the original Disciples really DID believe the things they were saying, to the point that they were willing to die for the Truth they preached. So he ended up turning to Christ as his Savior, too.

    And recently I read about a guy (here on this blog somewhere) who was convinced of the reality of Christ because of his study of the Shroud, which he initially believed was a fake. This is good news, it is very encouraging. I wish more of the pseudo-Skeptics would stop their mocking and get serious about doing some research of their own.

  2. For the purpose of comparison & brainstorming, do the scientists and religious team review what is mentioned in the Quran about Christ?

Comments are closed.