Joe Marino writes:
Some significant news about conference:
Prof. Bruno Barberis, Director of the International Center of Sindonology in Turin, is expected to present two papers at the conference, "Shroud, science and faith: dialogue or conflict?" and "The future of research on the Shroud."
Worth the trip!
The papers are timely, the Western world is getting to be more sceptical, belief in God is less, as time passes by, and it is natural that many will slowly begin to look to the TS to try and find some kind of prop for their faith.
Let us hope the conference brings good news for Shroud researchers, scholars and scientists as there is a lot Turin can do and Professor Barberis is their representative.
The Bible, particularly the New Testament and belief in Jesus’ Resurrection is being questioned, not only by people in general but by some biblical scholars as well. These doubts gained impetus with the “Jesus family tomb” film and book, which led to a Princeton Conference in Jerusalem and papers. It is not that the book proclaimed gospel truth, but the debate is heated. Here is my review of the book “The Tomb of Jesus and His Family?”:
https://www.academia.edu/6932873/Jesus_was_not_buried_in_Talpiot_Parts_I_II_and_III
The two previous parts of the article were written and posted a long time ago and there is need to put things in a better perspective in another book.
@Louis: I read your essay “God, science and religion” and found the fundamental error advocates of the authenticity of the Holy Shroud make. You referred to the “materialist paradigm of science.” This implies that so-called “materialists” fail at the level of reflective judgment. In other words, materialists are not good at evaluating the evidence against materialism. Materialists fail at the level of intelligence. The only theories they grasp are dualism and materialism. If someone only understands two theories of the mind, you should not treat their drivel with respect.
Good morning, David
You have made a link between the “materialist paradigm of science” I mentioned in connection with Jaspers in the article you cited. That was a simple statement, and, yes, it could apply to those in favour of the authenticity of the Shroud, with supernatural production of the image. Recent studies have shown that there are not just “two theories of the mind”, dualism and materialism, as you say, there are many schools and research is being conducted by psychologists, philosophers and scientists.
Since you insist that gnostics created the Shroud, may I ask which group of gnostics you refer to and what was the intention? The introduction of gnostics in the realm of Shroud studies is not new, as a matter of fact one paper was refuted by me years ago:
https://www.academia.edu/6568383/Does_the_Shroud_show_a_Mandaean_burial
May I suggest a solution to what you wrote about the rejection of the abstract of the paper you intended to present at the Saint Louis conference? I have seen well-known shroudies have their abstracts rejected at Shroud conferences. It has nothing to do with salvation history, both pro- and anti-authenticity papers are presented at such meetings. So why don’t you write a pdf and post it on some Shroud website or publish it somewhere?
My explanation of why the Shroud is not authentic was published by Spero News on Jan. 18, 2008, and is currently on my website (http://www.newevangelization.info). My slideshow is at http:www.holyshroud.info. The relevance of the mind-body problem is that non-believers do not understand it. You should not even talk about the existence of God to such people. You should first explain why the human mind is a mystery. There is no evidence supporting dualism and very little supporting materialism.There is more evidence for idealism than for materialism and dualism.The evidence that Gnostics did it, which ever sect, is that images are always created by humans. If you think the Shroud is authentic, you should keep it to yourself.
I offered to be a presenter at the conference and submitted an abstract. My application has been rejected. However, I am appealing to the conference’s committee and sponsors to reconsider the decision. History and science are two different methods of inquiry. Asking whether or not Jesus really cured sick people is not a good question because there are no before-and-after medical records. Asking where the Holy Shroud came from is a necessary science question because the Shroud exists. It is an artifact. The best theory is that it was created by Gnostics in the 1st or 2nd century using a crucified victim and methods that have been lost to history. If this theory is not presented at the conference, the committee will be guilty of misrepresenting our salvation history.
Re: Your comment of May 4th, 12.36 AM. It is not hard to agree with many points in idealism, there is a lot of research going on and there are conflicts, which are inevitable. You commented on another essay spontaneously above, but given the line you are taking, what would you say about:
https://www.academia.edu/5559678/C._G._Jung_Father_Victor_White_and_privatio_boni
As for the gnostic origin of the Shroud you defend, it will only be possible to discuss it further when you explain what was the purpose.
I don’t think Fr. White or Carl Jung know what they are talking about. Metaphysics is a method of inquiry that stands alongside science. Scientific questions arise from our five senses, and metaphysical questions arise from our ability to make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. Metaphysics is based on the insight that goodness and unity are properties of being. Finitude, class membership, and changing in time give rise to the concepts of essence/existence, form/matter, and substance/accidents. It is only important to understand metaphysics and to understand that it leads to the existence of a pure act of existence, which the Western religions call God. Discussing whether or not metaphysics has any truth content or the correctness of metaphysical theorems is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. More to the point, it is like arguing whether or not the Shroud of Turin is authentic. Gnostics thought that Jesus had wisdom and created the Shroud to tell the story of His passion and to have something to venerate.
You should not present at the St. Louis conference. I think that I speak for everyone when I say this is over all of our heads. You should seek a smarter audience. You would be wasting your time on us.
Sorry, David, I personally was giving you a chance to discuss the Shroud if you wrote something about how — and which group — of gnostics created the Shroud and not about any worldview, but it seems you have turned things the other way round. The need to be fair to everybody is very deep inside me, but there are limits. If you want to impose a worldview on the Shroud image then surely the Saint Louis conference will not welcome you and Dan has said this and the rest.
There is a conflict between me and you, and we should try to resolve it. Dan is on your side. What I suggest is that a Catholic theologian be asked to moderate a conversation between the three of us.
I have no interest is resolving any conflict between us; we can simply disagree. I’ll say it again: I don’t think the St. Louis conference is the right audience for your presentation. I agree with the decision of conference officials. Have you considered an international or national conferences on Gnosticism or metaphysics? I see no reason to continue this discussion. I do not want to close the thread down to other topics. Thanks for your consideration, David.