I posted this on the Catholic board, but i’d like to see what fellow Anglicans think of the Shroud as well.
The Shroud of Turin is perhaps one of the most important and controversial "relics" in the world today. Even famed atheist Richard Dawkins calls the Shroud a "problem."
. . .
One of the more thoughtful responses was from Anna Scott (“Anglo Catholic fighting for orthodoxy in TEC [= the Episcopal Church]”):
I think the Shroud is interesting. I’ve followed the different tests and controversies through the years. It is possible that it could be the Shroud of Christ; but I think using it to convince others of the resurrection (I realize you are not doing this) can do damage to the Gospel—especially if the shroud is eventually proven to be a forgery—just as I have seen incalculable damage to the Gospel by the Intelligent Design proponents. We accept the Gospel through faith–Christ being the author and perfecter of our faith. I don’t need anything in the material world to prove that Christ came to us as God Incarnate, was crucified and resurrected. However, I am always glad to hear more information on the Shroud. It is fascinating–whether it be authentic or a very clever forgery. What did Dawkins say about the shroud being a "problem." I thought he had completely dismissed it as a forgery? . . .. . . See: Turin Shroud resurrected (a link at Dawkins Foundation)
And Sean611 responded:
He absolutely dismisses it as a forgery, but he still calls it a "problem" and a "controversy" because science can’t dismiss it easily. He dismisses it based on the carbon dating test back in the 1980s and has admitted that it can be as old as 600AD. However, there is a very large segment of the science community, mostly atheist/agnostic, that don’t come to the same conclusions as Dawkins. They can recreate something somewhat similar, but what is especially difficult is the 3-D information content in the images of the Shroud. Fascinating stuff!