Revisited: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, mea natibus?

clip_image001Barbara from Roanoke asks, “Someone wrote something about God betting we can’t figure out how the image was formed. Do you recall the words?”

Are the words from this pearl of wisdom by one of the many great philosophers of the shroud blog, daveb of wellington nz in a comment in Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, mea natibus?

I personally think that the Deity likes to have his little jokes with his creatures. He seems to have wanted to teach Russell & Whitehead an important lesson in humility, and have said to Einstein, “Don’t tell Me what to do with My dice!”. As far as the Shroud image is concerned, I think He may be saying, “Bet you can’t discover how I did it!”

Here is the full quote.

One thought on “Revisited: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, mea natibus?”

  1. When it comes to the Shroud, unlike Russell’s teapot we know it exists and the issue is: What kind of teapot.?

    That’s where Science comes in, or at least should come in. And it has. We not only know that the teapot exists but by analyzing the Shroud accross multiple disciplines, Science can state with some assurety that it is the image of a crucified man with woulds consistent with the New Testament and that the images was most likely created within 48 hours of death. That’s a lot of teapot. This teapot even has actual bloodstains.

    In all of human history, there is been reports of only one human being that matches those circumstnces. (Hint, his intials are JC). Some debate that he was not a human being; they are called Gnostics or Jansenists. It’s clear, that the man in the Shroud shed real blood.

    Is there doubt? Perhaps, but it is reasonable doubt? In a courtroom we would say the burden has shifted. The circumstances DEMONSTRATED BY SCIENCE allow a more than reasonable inference. All of the attempts to explain around the Shroud have failed. The skeptics have had more than a century now to produce their evidence and they have failed.

    Spare me the D’Arcis memorandum. That is hearsay on hearsay. In other words, not ebidence.

    Carbon dating? Let me quote Thomas de Wesellow:

    “The carbon dating of the Shroud will probably go down in history as one of the greatest fiascos in the history of science. It would make an excellent case study for any sociologist interested in exploring the ways in which science is affected by professional biases, prejudices and ambitions, not to mention religious (and irreligious) beliefs. ”

    Wesellow clains to be an agnostic and. beacsue he is, he cameup with an imaginative explanation of the Resurrection. That’s a different debate.

    But yes, Bertrand Russell there is teapot and it is an ancient piece of linen in Turin, Italy. Sorry you never got to see it.

Comments are closed.