Why the Shroud of Turin Matters
I hope I don’t alienate too many with the following comment.
We live in an very unsettled age where orthodoxy, both religious and scientific, is challenged as never before. The advance of science has rendered literal readings of scripture close to impossible. The Earth was not created six thousand years ago and man never walked with dinosaurs. Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, wrote about the origins of the creation myth of Genesis and concluded, as most biblical scholars do, that it was allegory, not history. Yet, a poll of American Catholics found a majority accepting Genesis as history and blithely unaware of the direction the Church was moving. And when a new Catechism was adopted at the turn of the millennium, biblical scholarship was virtually ignored.
But if uncertainty about the literal truth of Scripture is an issue, take some heart because the scientific method and the “rational” view of existence are taking hits that make the creationist-evolutionist controversy small change.
What is the actuality of existence, both of myself and the Universe? Since the time of Newton, the direction of science has been guided by developing “rational” philosophy that first separated itself from religion and finally rejected any spiritual answers.
But beginning at the turn of the last century, the entire basis of the Newtonian view began to unravel as science delved into the mysteries of the most basic level of existence, the quantum. Quantum Mechanics defied rational analysis and there has emerged, and continues to emerge, the realization that the basic organizing principal of existence is consciousness. Among its quantum concepts is quantum entanglement – a relationship among entities that works beyond time and space and it has been demonstrated that what affects one entangled entity simultaneously affects the other, even if light years away. To Einstein that was “spooky.”
And now, paralleling this ferment is Shroud science. Beginning with the discovery in 1898 that the Shroud of Turin’s faint images of a man, front and back, were in fact negative images demonstrating the reality of the Crucifixion, Shroud science has demonstrated that reality of Jesus Christ, his crucifixion and death. It also lends support to his Resurrection.
The current flash of publicity concerning Thomas de Wesselow’s “The Sign” is an indication of the vitality of the Shroud Science and vindication of the work of a host of individuals in studying the Shroud, particularly the Shroud of Turin Study Group (STURP) whose work is preserved at http:// http://www.shroud.com, among other places.
Wesselow, like the atheist pope Richard Dawkins in “The God Delusion” rejects out of hand any miraculous or spiritual explanation of anything. An art historian by training, he makes mincemeat of the claims that Shroud was a painting from medieval times and concludes that it was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.
However, after having stated his bias as a “rationalist”, he then goes on to make many irrational and dubious claims, essentially arguing that the Shroud accounts for all the reported post-Resurrection apparitions of Christ. Instead of the “walking corpse” the rationalists disdain, we now have a “talking Shroud.”
As important as the Shroud is, it is not the Resurrection. It is however a material object that factually supports the Resurrection.
In this era of philosophical turmoil and doubt, where science is now reaching the conclusion that at the most basic level of existence, consciousness governs, it is a new revelation, but a revelation brought to us by the application of science. In this time, and this place, it can not be ignored. To an anxious and confused generation, facing complex and near insolvable problems of existence, Christ is coming again.
” In this era of philosophical turmoil and doubt, where science is now reaching the conclusion that at the most basic level of existence, consciousness governs….”
I also hope not to alienate anybody but this statement is far from being scientific. No serious scientist would support that in the light of current knowledge consciousness governs at the most basic level of existence.
This is in the line of bad New Age literature that so widely has been used to justify non existing connections between UFO or astrology and modern science. So sad to see that it is also applied in the context of the Shroud. Father Carreira has speculated -never demonstrated- on some possible connections at quantum level, but stating that consciousness governs is going too far.
I have mentioned this several times in previous comments, but if we want to make an objective and scientific approach to the Shroud, lets start by adopting the scientific methodology that applies to any other field. This also implies adopting a scientific language and not a philosophical or theological one to describe state-of the art physics.
I think that there are enough truly scientific challenges regarding the Shroud that must be addressed with truly scientific protocols, that using speculative or poorly understood scientific concepts only contributes to keeping the Shroud in a never ending “murkier than ever” status, and what is worse, far from science`s mainstream.
Gabriel,
The place of consciousness in Quantum Mechanics is discussed in the following sources:
Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness Second Edition Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, 2nd ed. New York, Oxford University Press, 2011
Mitchell, Edgar, et ano, The Quantum Hologram And the Nature of Consciousness, http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness149.html;
Clarke, Chris; Kragh, Helge; Chopra, Deepak; Penrose, Roger; Joseph, R.; King, Chris; Kafatos, Menas; Mensky, Michael (2011-09-27). Cosmology of Consciousness: Quantum Physics & Neuroscience of Mind (Kindle Location 13). Cosmology Science Publishers. Kindle Edition
Quantum Enigma contains the following quote:
I”n the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it.” Martin Rees (Rosenblum et ano, supra, Bruce; Kutter, Fred (2011-07-01). Quantum Enigma : Physics Encounters Consciousness (Kindle Locations 4140-4142).
“The universe exists because we are aware of it”
That might explain why my universe looks different to yours…
Here is the phrase that pays: “However, after having stated his bias as a “rationalist”, he then goes on to make many irrational and dubious claims, essentially arguing that the Shroud accounts for all the reported post-Resurrection apparitions of Christ. Instead of the “walking corpse” the rationalists disdain, we now have a “talking Shroud.”
That parapraph was worth the read.
Quote : “As important as the Shroud is, it is not the Resurrection. It is however a material object that factually supports the Resurrection.”
I agree with this line. I love the fact that M. Klotz use the word “supports” instead of “prove”. This difference is important and the choice of word here was very clever. Bravo !
But, in the end, I really hope nobody the Shroud the centerpiece of his belief in Jesus resurrection…
Yannick,
You found me out. I believe the Shroud does in fact prove that Christ existed, was crucified, died and was buried. It is consistent with his Resurrection and I am glad you understand that I make that distinction. However, I also believe that the centerpiece of Christianity is the commandment of love. In the words of the great Rabbi Hillel speaking of the golden rule, “everything else is commentary.” Resurrection, however, remains everyone’s “whispering hope.”
You said : “the centerpiece of Christianity is the commandment of love.” I agree and I think that the Shroud is a great sign of that kind of love. When I read : “love one another as I have loved you.” and when I look at the Shroud, I understand the greatness of the love of God and understand also that we will always be very far from that kind of love. It’s a great chance that God have Mercy for us, because if that wouldn’t be the case, we would all go to hell ! ;-)
Here’s what you should read : “But, in the end, I really hope nobody take the Shroud as the centerpiece of his belief in Jesus resurrection…
Yannick,
I’m with John on this one about the Shroud; sorry, but it was the reason I came to belief. I don’t get why so many people are bothered with the Shroud being used in this way as long as its done rationally and with the science. Also, for those of you who may be Eastern Orthodox: Christos Anesti!
Bravo, Nick! Why, if one believes this Shroud to be the Shroud of Christ, the actual Shroud that wrapped our Lord, that it can not be looked at with the same veneration as one of the Gospels? The Fifth Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus! The Shroud I believe is real and if so only ONE is responsible for it being here. To this, I at this point have no question!. So if it is the ‘sign of Jonah’ then it is most obviously a tool left by the Lord to strengthen our faith and to gather more of his flock….I believe no ‘natural’ cause to the image can or will ever be found and I base this on all the ‘evidence’ that the image shows me and in which has baffled some of the finest minds of our time…period.
R
if the apostles had the presence of the ressurected Christ to base thier belief I feel there is nothing wrong with seeing a unmakeable relic depicting the presence of Jesus as a pathway to the knowing of the ressurection. although i believe the ones that can come to this through faith are much more blessed per Jesus but i will embrace my pathway
If someone make the Shroud the centerpiece of his belief, it’s really poor and even risky ! And if someone make the Shroud the real centerpiece of his belief, there’s a great danger called Idolatry. It’s not me who speak, it is the Church…
How is it risky? Or a great danger?…If God will accept everyone Yannick, a slight contradiction to another comment you have made isn’t it? …
I personally don’t believe God cares how you come about believing in him, aslong as you believe from your heart and mind. Thomas didn’t believe, he needed to see and touch Jesus before he believed. Do you think Jesus looked at him any less then the others, when it comes down to it? I don’t think so as God knows and understands our weaknesses as material beings….But faced with the truth, right in front of you and to still refuse his love, thats where things will get iffy.
R
The danger is for the present life Ron. Not the other one. No contradiction here. The danger with Idolatry is that it’s a very weak faith that can be throw down to the ground easily at the very first signs of doubts, pain and/or suffering in your life. When you base your faith on a material object, this kind of “material” faith can even die if the object in question is proven to be false !!! That’s the real danger of Idolatry.
But, in the end, you do what you want and I’M SURE THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL FIND THE BEST WAY TO REACH YOUR HEART. Don’t worry, God is Love ! :-)
I don’t think so Yannick, first you are assuming the Shroud will be shown to be false eventually.(Doubt this very much). Two you are assuming that one that has been drawn by the Shroud would crumble if it is ever proved a false relic. Consider the Shroud as a means to attract some to look further into the life of Jesus. Once someone is urged thru this amazing image to read further into Jesus’s life, his sayings, his crucifixion, I believe one’s faith would be strong enough to deal with anything, even the ‘proving’ of the Shroud a hoax. (Again highly doubtfull). I also have a feeling the Shroud ‘alone’ is not able to draw people to Christ, I believe one must have a inkling of Christ in their hearts already. As I’ve said before the Shroud may just be a tool to draw but not one to base faith on.
R
Quote : “As I’ve said before the Shroud may just be a tool to draw but not one to base faith on.”
I agree completely with you ! I’m not against the Shroud since it’s somewhat of a boost for my own faith !!! But I don’t make it the centerpiece of my faith. It is the man depicted on the Shroud that is the centerpiece of my faith, along with the other 2 (the Father and the Spirit) !!! I don’t think we will disagree on that Ron.
The danger is when someone believe in God or in Christ solely because of the Shroud… That’s what I mean by “danger”.
“The danger is when someone believes in God or in Christ solely because of the Shroud…thats what I mean by “danger”…but that goes without saying. But one cannot refute the Shroud as a ‘means’ to believe. Without the Shroud how do people come to believing in God? I would think it’s because of the Bible, the Bible has been said to be all fairytales, written hundreds of years after the fact, written by unknowns, with very little to no scientific, historic evidence to back it’s message up!, yet we believe in the bible do we not? Is there not a danger in relying on the material ‘man-made-and written’ object known as the bible? …Ofcourse! But one knows when something is right or wrong somehow, call it a devine spark I don’t know, but one looks at the Shroud and knows; this is right same as when reading the passages of the Bible.
Hope that makes sense. ;-)
R
And my assumption that the Shroud can be false is just a “scientific” statement since we both know that science will never be able to completely prove the Shroud is authentic. So, in that sense, there will always be a place for doubting his authenticity and that could be problematic for someone’s faith if it is base completely on the assumption that the Shroud proves the resurrection or things like that ! I’m sure you understand what I mean.
as the old saying goes a picture is worth a 1000 words. when i see and contemplate the shroud it is like being at the scene of the crucifixtion and i SEE the suffering that Jesus went through for me and us and i know that He lived and every word He said is true. This the difference between saying abortion is wrong and seeing an actual abortion being done which one has the greater impact and i can understand why many people want to prove the shroud is fake; ain’t gonna happen.
I’m with you Paul, the Shroud does have amazing ‘pulling power’ doesn’t it? …Pretty strong analogy used in your comment, but comes across well.
R