Sigh…
So here’s what’s been going on lately. Most of you who read this blog already know that when my wife and I left Christianity, it wrecked most of our family relationships. My wife’s parents and siblings, as well as my own, felt that they could no longer interact with us socially after our deconversion. We were no longer invited to any family functions, and our communication with them all but disappeared. We would speak if it was about religious issues, or if there were logistic issues that needed to be worked out in letting them see our kids, etc.
Over the years, things have gotten a little better, especially with my wife’s parents. Things are by no means back to normal, but at least our infrequent interactions have become more civil and more comfortable. A few weeks ago, I even had a phone conversation with my father that lasted about half an hour and had no references to religion whatsoever. It was nice.
Nevertheless, the awkwardness is still there, just under the surface. And we’re still blacklisted from all the family functions.
Throughout this time, I’ve occasionally reached out to my side of the family with phone calls, letters, facebook messages, etc, in an effort to discuss the issues that divide us. I don’t get much response. I’ve always been puzzled by that, since I know they think I’m completely wrong. If their position is right, why aren’t they willing to discuss it?
In the last five years, I’ve also been sent books and articles and even been asked to speak to certain individuals, and I’ve complied with every request. Why not? How could more information hurt? But when I’ve suggested certain books to them, or written letters, they aren’t read. When I finally realized that my problems with Christianity weren’t going to be resolved, I wrote a 57-page paper to my family and close friends, explaining why I could no longer call myself a Christian. As far as I know, none of them ever read the whole thing. And sure, 57 pages is quite a commitment. But they say this is the most important subject in their lives…
This past week, the topic has started to come back around. A local church kicked off a new series on Monday entitled “Can We Believe the Bible?” It’s being led by an evangelist/professor/apologist that was kind enough to take time to correspond with me for several weeks in the summer of 2010. I’ve never met him in person, but a mutual friend connected us, since he was someone who was knowledgeable about the kinds of questions I was asking. Obviously, we didn’t wind up on the same page.
My wife’s parents invited us to attend the series, but it happens to be at a time that I’m coaching my oldest daughter’s soccer team. So unless we get rained out at some point, there’s no way we can attend. However, we did tell them that if practice is ever cancelled, we’ll go. I also contacted the church and asked if the sermons (if that’s the right word?) will be recorded, and they said that they should be.
Monday night, the weather was fine, so we weren’t able to attend. And so far, the recording isn’t available on their website. However, they do have a recording of Sunday night’s service available, which is entitled “Question & Answer Night.” I just finished listening to it, and that’s where the bulk of my frustration comes from.
It’s essentially a prep for the series that kicked off Monday night. They’re discussing why such a study is important, as well as the kinds of things they plan to cover. What’s so frustrating to me is that I don’t understand the mindset of evangelists like this. I mean, they’ve studied enough to know what the major objections to fundamentalist Christianity are, yet they continue on as if there’s no problem. And when they do talk about atheists and skeptics, they misrepresent our position. I can’t tell if they honestly believe the version they’re peddling, or if they’re purposefully creating straw men.
A couple of times, they mentioned that one of the main reasons people reject the Bible comes down to a preconception that miracles are impossible. “And if you start from that position, then you’ll naturally reject the Bible.” But that’s a load of crap. Most atheists were once theists, so their starting position was one that believed in miracles.
They also mentioned that so many of these secular articles and documentaries “only show one side.” I thought my head was going to explode.
And they referred to the common complaints against the Bible as “the same tired old arguments that have been answered long ago.” It’s just so infuriating. If the congregants had any knowledge of the details of these “tired old arguments,” I doubt they’d unanimously find the “answers” satisfactory. But the danger with a series like this is that it almost works like a vaccination. The members of the congregation are sitting in a safe environment, listening to trusted “experts,” and they’re injected with a watered down strain of an argument. And it’s that watered down version that’s eradicated by the preacher’s message. So whenever the individual encounters the real thing, they think it’s already been dealt with, and the main point of the argument is completely lost on them.
For example, most Christians would be bothered to find out that the texts of the Bible are not as reliable as were always led to believe. Even a beloved story like the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus writes on the ground, we’ve discovered that it was not originally part of the gospel of John. It’s a later addition from some unknown author. To a Christian who’s never heard that before, it’s unthinkable! But if they’ve gone through classes where they’ve been told that skeptics exaggerate the textual issues in the Bible, and that the few changes or uncertainties deal with only very minor things, and that none of the changes affect any doctrinal points about the gospel, then it’s suddenly easier for them to swallow “minor” issues like the insertion of an entire story into the gospel narrative.
Sigh…
I’m going to either attend these sessions, or I’ll watch/listen to them once they’re available online. I may need to keep some blood pressure medication handy, though.
Finding Truth 
Arch, I was under the impression that this is not new news. Didn’t that take place last year?
LikeLike
Hi Crown, thanks for your last comment, which you addressed to me. As I said before, I am a non-Catholic christian (I would probably describe myself as anabaptist) and I am open to all you have written, but also sceptical enough to want to follow everything up.
1. I have begun to research the Shroud, but nowhere near finished. But I appreciate all you wrote, have made a copy of it and will be using it as a basis for my search.
2. You don’t have to convince me about Lourdes. I have already read up on it and written about it. I don’t have a belief in any aspects of the Catholic teachings about Mary, but that doesn’t stop me recognising when something remarkable has occurred.
3. There are Protestant miracles too, and I have researched some of them too – see Healing miracles and God. A preliminary study by NT scholar Craig Keener estimates that upward of 300 million people claim to have experienced or witnessed a miraculous healing after prayer to the christian God. I cannot believe all of those stories are lies or mistakes, and I know no-one can have attempted to disprove them, so they too stand as evidence.
4. I have never heard of the non-rotting bodies (I guess I should get out more! 🙂 ) but I will look them up too. I must confess that doesn’t seem to me to be the way God would work, but who am I to judge a priori?
5. Finally, as a regular reader of Nate’s blog, I’m sorry for the rough handling you have received here. Despite lots of words, no-one yet has seriously attempted to grapple with your evidence, and that may be why one or two have chosen to be rude instead. My advice (for what it is worth) would be continue to read the blog, ignore the rude comments and make your own comments as dispassionately as possible. After all, you know better than I that rudeness isn’t permissible in court, evidence is what rules. I know of people who read this blog without commenting much, and they will see who is offering evidence and who is offering rudeness masked as cleverness and lack of interest in contrary evidence masked as confidence. And on top of that, Nate is a very open-minded guy, and there are other commenters here who are friendly, but whose voices you may not have noticed.
Go well, and thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s dated just a few months ago.
LikeLike
Josh, I don’t know if you are a parent, but when they brought my daughter to me, after giving birth, I was all thumbs, yes, but I didn’t need anyone to tell me to love her, to comfort her, keep her safe, nurture her. I had oxytocin to thank for that — the bonding (love) neurohormone. Without it, I would have most likely abandon my child or neglected her.
I agree with you that most of the messages that are credited to Jesus are good messages, but as I’m sure you are aware, the Golden Rule has been around a long time. I see nothing wrong with having someone who is prosocial to look up to, but Jesus is not unique when it comes to prosocial, altruistic behavior.
“The more I “know” the more I’m awed by life, the universe, and the less I think I really understand anything.”
I hear ya. When I was a devout Christian, it was rather boring because everyone had the answer — “God did it —’nuff said”. I was never encouraged to question, and I had been indoctrinated to believe that doubt meant I lacked faith.
We really don’t know if a god did it — created the universe, and I’m OK with that. I’m also OK with this being the only life I get. Makes me appreciate life and my loved ones all the more. 🙂
LikeLike
“I will keep researching the other claims and report back if I find anything interesting one way or the other. I look forward to reading what Nate and UnkleE uncover as well.”
Hi Dave, firstly, my apologies. I said to Crown that no-one had yet grappled with his evidence, but it seems you are having a go. I didn’t mean to demean your efforts.
Secondly, don’t hold your breath for my answers. I have started collecting links and doing some reading, but I have heaps of other things on my agenda, and I imagine I’m weeks away from having any conclusion.
LikeLike
“It’s dated just a few months ago.”
Yes, last year, about 6 months ago. What you quoted made it seem like this happened this past week. It’s very disturbing that this is taking place. Thanks for sharing as others may not have been aware of this.
LikeLike
No argument here.
I’m sorry to hear you were never encouraged to question. Unfortunately, that seems to be the norm. Glad you are questioning now!
With regard to this life being the only one, I’d say id be disappointed to find that out. But, I won’t exist to be disappointed. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
“With regard to this life being the only one, I’d say id be disappointed to find that out. But, I won’t exist to be disappointed.”
😀
LikeLike
200,000,000 desperate sick people have traveled to Lourdes to be healed by Jesus/the Christian god over the last 150 years. How many of those two hundred million people has Jesus allegedly healed?
69.
The all-powerful Creator of the universe looks down from his throne in Heaven upon millions of suffering human beings, many of them children…and chooses to miraculously heal only a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of them.
Why not all of them?
Answer: ancestral forbidden fruit eating.
LikeLike
“But, I won’t exist to be disappointed.” – I think you’ve found the key to how it works, Josh – they hold out the carrot until you reach the point where a carrot will no longer do you any good.
LikeLike
UnkleE:
What are you talking about, sir? This is the second time you have said that the “rude” people who responded to Crown never responded with evidence. I presented the official findings/evidence from the three labs, supervised by the British Museum, of the examination of the Shroud and its carbon dating in the late 1980’s. I listed the contributors to the article, all very well respected scientists. THAT is evidence. I also posted an excerpt from a scientific article that explained carbon dating and how reliable it is…even in the 1980’s.
You may not have liked the evidence, but it IS evidence. And it proves without a doubt, to the overwhelming majority of scientists, that the shroud is a medieval fraud.
Period.
LikeLike
@unklee,
reg: no-one had yet grappled with his evidence, but it seems you are having a go. I didn’t mean to demean your efforts.
I didn’t bite the first time you said it, but since you keep repeating it I think this deserve a response.
I don’t think we are not grappling with his evidence. This is not the first time we’ve heard of shroud of turin and all the lourves miracles. I’ve personally watched hours of documentaries on it (back when I’m a christian and after I’ve deconverted), so it’s not frivolous when we dismiss the “evidence”.
Honestly what Crown has presented is nothing new that hasn’t been said before.
I think somebody mentioned about “high bar for miracles”, and I do agree with it. Again, since I’m from a multi-racial culture where I grew up, I’m acutely aware of many miracles from other religions. And, in my evangelistic days, I did studied more wanting to “prove” to others that Christianity miracles are in fact “legit”, or at least more legit than the other claims.
Unfortunately, the “evidences” for the miracles for Christianity/Catholic is of the same standard of the other miracle claims from other religions. Certainly this is my personal opinion, you may disagree, but at least I have explored them and found them wanting even with my christian tinted lenses on back then.
So yes, pardon us for not going line-by-line debunking Crown’s evidence. But you should at least give us the benefit of doubt that when we dismiss things, we don’t do it frivolously. To keep suggesting that we are hand-waving information away would certainly be unfair. And if we are such a close minded bunch you wouldn’t be speaking here yourself eh?
As a side note, I myself have claimed miracle happening to me – I prayed for god to take away the pain of my toothache and 30 mins later it stopped, just as I was about to pop ice into my mouth to stop the pain. I have been sharing it to many like-minded believers then, telling them God has indeed not tested me beyond my means (I prayed earlier that I will stop using ice to numb it as I want to be stronger than the pain). However, what I leave out to many people while sharing the miracle story is the fact that I took painkillers also around 30 mins prior. Now if you ask me, I would say it is the delayed effect of the painkillers and not god that stopped the pain. But if you asked me 5 years ago, I would be part of your 300 million contingent that would testify to the death that I had a medical miracle. And that God cares for small little things even toothaches! So keep praying and claim the healing today!
So yes, I’ll just say I’m highly skeptical of your 300 million miracle claims. And no, nobody is going to debunk each and everyone of your claims because it is impossible to do so. And you want to count that as evidence? Lets just agree to disagree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Gary
Why not all of them?
My dear Gary, you are obviously mistaken.
The reason why God didn’t heal them is not because of ancient forbidden fruit. The reason God doesn’t heal is because he cares!
To quote Mother Teresa, or rather SAINT Mother Teresa:
“Pain and suffering have come into your life, but remember pain, sorrow, suffering are but the kiss of Jesus – a sign that you have come so close to Him that He can kiss you.”
So obviously Jesus didn’t care about the 300 million people whom enjoyed healing miracles according to Unklee. But these guys suffering with Mother Teresa? He loves them to bits. Perhaps the 300 million didn’t brush their teeth before they sleep? Hence no kisses from Jesus.
LikeLike
What is interesting regarding Mother Theresa is that her personal journals showed she experienced very real doubt and at times questioned the existence of God.
LikeLike
@ Peter
And even more interesting was that she went to a hospital for medical help when she was sick. For others? Please stay away from hospitals and wait for kiss from Jesus.
LikeLike
@Gary — I do agree that you’ve posted some very important information here in reply to Crown’s arguments. It may just be the way you word your conclusions to those posts? I’m often ready to click “like” on what you’ve written, but then the final point or two either says more than I’m currently comfortable saying, or says it in a way that is a little more confrontational than I’m comfortable with. Not to say there’s anything wrong with that, but it may be what’s given Crown and unkleE the impression that you use ad hominem arguments, etc.
LikeLike
Peter – you always come up with the most fascinating of facts. I never knew that about Mother Theresa. This is why I have a difficult time seeing that belief/doubt/non-belief is the main reason for acceptance by any deity that might be interested in human well being. The Dalai Lama is another figure who I have respect for – and he does not believe in a supreme deity.
LikeLike
@Howie
No love for me? zzzz
LikeLike
Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin
by
P. E. Damon,1 D. J. Donahue,2 B. H. Gore,1 A. L. Hatheway,2 A. J. T. Jull,1 T. W. Linick,2 P. J. Sercel,2 L. J. Toolin,1 C.R. Bronk,3 E. T. Hall,3
R. E. M. Hedges, 3 R. Housley,3 I. A. Law,3 C. Perry,3 G. Bonani,4 S. Trumbore,5 W. Woelfli,4 J. C. Ambers,6 S. G. E. Bowman,6 M. N. Leese6 & M. S. Tite6
Reprinted from Nature, Vol. 337, No. 6208, pp. 611-615, 16th February, 1989
Copyright 1989 Macmillan Magazines Ltd. – All Rights Reserved
Reprinted by permission.
1 – Department of Geosciences,
2 – Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA
3 – Research Laboratory for Archaeology and History of Art, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3QJ, UK
4 – Institut für Mittelenergiephysik, ETH-Hönggerberg, CH-8093 Zürich, Switzerland
5 – Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964, USA
6 – Research Laboratory, British Museum, London WC1B 3DG, UK
Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. As Controls, three samples whose ages had been determined independently were also dated. The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.
The Shroud of Turin , which many people believe was used to wrap Christ’s body, bears detailed front and back images of a man who appears to have suffered whipping and crucifixion. It was first displayed at Lirey in France in the 1350s and subsequently passed into the hands of the Dukes of Savoy. After many journeys the shroud was finally brought to Turin in 1578 where, in 1694, it was placed in the royal chapel of Turin Cathedral in a specially designed shrine.
Photography of the shroud by Secondo Pia in 1898 indicated that the image resembled a photographic ‘negative’ and represents the first modern study. Subsequently the shroud was made available for scientific examination, first in 1969 and 1973 by a committee appointed by Cardinal Michele Pellegrino 1 and then again in 1978 by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)2. Even for the first investigation, there was a possibility of using radiocarbon dating to determine the age of the linen from which the shroud was woven. The size of the sample then required, however, was ~500cm, which would clearly have resulted in an unacceptable amount of damage, and it was not until the development in the 1970s of small gas-counters and accelerator-mass-spectrometry techniques (AMS), requiring samples of only a few square centimetres, that radiocarbon dating of the shroud became a real possibility.
To confirm the feasibility of dating the shroud by these methods an intercomparison, involving four AMS and two small gas-counter radiocarbon laboratories and the dating of three known-age textile samples, was coordinated by the British Museum in 1983. The results of this intercomparison are reported and discussed by Burleigh et al.3.
Following this intercomparison, a meeting was held in Turin in September-October 1986 at which seven radiocarbon laboratories (five AMS and two small gas-counter) recommended a protocol for dating the shroud. In October 1987, the offers from three AMS laboratories (Arizona, Oxford and Zurich) were selected by the Archbishop of Turin, Pontifical Custodian of the shroud, acting on instructions from the Holy See, owner of the shroud. At the same time, the British Museum was invited to help in the certification of the samples provided and in the statistical analysis of the results. The procedures for taking the samples and treating the results were discussed by representatives of the three chosen laboratories at a meeting at the British Museum in January 1988 and their recommendations 4 were subsequently approved by the Archbishop of Turin.
c14-01.jpg
FIG.1 Mean radiocarbon dates, with a ±1 sd (sd = standard deviation) errors, of the Shroud of Turin and
control samples, as supplied by the three laboratories (A, Arizona; O, Oxford; Z, Zurich) (See also Table 2.)
The shroud is sample 1, and the three controls are samples 2-4. Note the break in age scale. Ages are given
in yr BP (years before 1950). The age of the shroud is obtained as AD 1260-1390, with at least 95% confidence.
Removal of samples from the shroud
The sampling of the shroud took place in the Sacristy at Turin Cathedral on the morning of 21 April 1988. Among those present when the sample as cut from the shroud were Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (Archbishop of Turin), Professor L. Gonella (Department of Physics, Turin Polytechnic and the Archbishop’s scientific adviser), two textile experts (Professor F. Testore of Department of Materials Science, Turin Polytechnic and G. Vial of Musée des Tissues and Centre International d’Étude des Textiles Anciens in Lyon), Dr M. S. Tite of the British Museum, representatives of the three radiocarbon-dating laboratories (Professor P. E. Damon, Professor D. J. Donahue, Professor E. T. Hall, Dr R. E. M. Hedges and Professor W. Woelfli) and G. Riggi, who removed the sample from the shroud.
The shroud was separated from the backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (~10 mm x 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas. Three samples, each ~50 mg in weight, were prepared from this strip. The samples were then taken to the adjacent Sala Capitolare where they were wrapped in aluminium foil and subsequently sealed inside numbered stainless-steel containers by the Archbishop of Turin and Dr Tite. Samples weighing 50 mg from two of the three controls were similarly packaged. The three containers containing the shroud (to be referred to as sample 1) and two control samples (samples 2 and 3) were then handed to representatives of each of the three laboratories together with a sample of the third control (sample 4), which was in the form of threads. All these operations, except for the wrapping of the samples in foil and their placing in containers, were fully documented by video film and photography.
The laboratories were not told which container held the shroud sample. Because the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls, however, it was possible for a laboratory to identify the shroud sample. If the samples had been unravelled or shredded rather than being given to the laboratories as whole pieces of cloth, then it would have been much more difficult, but not impossible, to distinguish the shroud sample from the controls. (With unravelled or shredded samples, pretreatment cleaning would have been more difficult and wasteful.) Because the shroud had been exposed to a wide range of potential sources of contamination and because of the uniqueness of the samples available, it was decided to abandon blind-test procedures in the interests of effective sample pretreatment. But the three laboratories undertook not to compare results until after they had been transmitted to the British Museum. Also, at two laboratories (Oxford and Zurich), after combustion to gas, the samples were recoded so that the staff making the measurements did not know the identity of the samples.
Controls
The three control samples, the approximate ages of which were made known to the laboratories, are listed below. Two were in the form of whole pieces of cloth (samples 2 and 3) and one was in the form of threads (sample 4).
Sample 2. Linen (sample QI.T/32) from a tomb excavated at Qasr Ibrîm in Nubia by Professor J. M. Plumley for the Egypt Exploration Society in 1964. On the basis of the Islamic embroidered pattern and Christian ink inscription, this linen could be dated to the eleventh to twelfth centuries AD.
Sample 3. Linen from the collection of the Department of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum, associated with an early second century AD mummy of Cleopatra from Thebes (EA6707). This linen was dated in the British Museum Research Laboratory using liquid scintillation counting, giving a radiocarbon age of 2,010 ± 80 yr BP (BM-2558). This corresponds to a calendar age, rounded to the nearest 5 years, of 110 cal BC – AD 75 cal at the 68 per cent confidence level 5 (where cal denotes calibrated radiocarbon dates).
Sample 4. Threads removed from the cope of St Louis d’Anjou which is held in a chapel in the Basilica of Saint-Maximin, Var, France. On the basis of the stylistic details and the historical evidence the cope could be dated at ~ AD 1290 – 1310 (reign of King Phillipe IV).
Measurement procedures
Because it was not known to what degree dirt, smoke or other contaminants might affect the linen samples, all three laboratories subdivided the samples, and subjected the pieces to several different mechanical and chemical cleaning procedures.
All laboratories examined the textile samples microscopically to identify and remove any foreign material. The Oxford group cleaned the samples using a vacuum pipette, followed by cleaning in petroleum ether (40° C for 1 h) to remove lipids and candlewax, for example. Zurich precleaned the sample in an ultrasonic bath. After these initial cleaning procedures, each laboratory split the samples for further treatment.
The Arizona group split each sample into four subsamples. One pair of subsamples from each textile was treated with dilute HCL, dilute NaOH and again in acid, with rinsing in between (method a). The second pair of subsamples was treated with a commercial detergent (1.5% SDS), distilled water, 0.1% HCL and another detergent (1.5% triton X-100); they were then submitted to a Soxhlet extraction with ethanol for 60 min and washed with distilled water at 70° C in an ultrasonic bath (method b).
The Oxford group divided the precleaned sample into three. Each subsample was treated with 1M HCL (80° C for 2h), 1M NaOH (80° C for 2 h) and again in acid, with rinsing in between. Two of the three samples were then bleached in NaOCL (2.5% at pH-3 for 30 min).
The Zurich group first split each ultrasonically cleaned sample in half, with the treatment of the second set of samples being deferred until the radiocarbon measurements on the first set had been completed. The first set of samples was further subdivided into three portions. One-third received no further treatment, one-third was submitted to a weak treatment with 0.5% HCL (room temperature), 0.25% NaOH (room temperature) and again in acid, with rinsing in between. The final third was given a strong treatment, using the same procedure except that hot (80° C) 5% HCL and 2.5% NaOH were used. After the first set of measurements revealed no evidence of contamination, the second set was split into two portions, to which the weak and strong chemical treatments were applied.
All of the groups combusted the cleaned textile subsample with copper oxide in sealed tubes, then converted the resulting CO2 to graphite targets. Arizona and Oxford converted CO2 to CO in the presence of zinc, followed by iron-catalysed reduction to graphite, as described in Slota et al. 6. Zurich used cobalt-catalysed reduction in the presence hydrogen, as described by Vogel et al. 7,8.
Each laboratory measured the graphite targets made from the textile samples, together with appropriate standards and blanks, as a group (a run). Each laboratory performed between three and five independent measurements for each textile sample which were carried out over a time period of about one month. The results of these independent measurements (Table 1) in each case represent the average of several replicate measurements made during each run (samples are measured sequentially, the sequence being repeated several times). The specific measurement procedures for each laboratory are given by Linick et al. 9 for Arizona, by Gillespie et al. 10 for Oxford and by Suter et al. 11 for Zurich. Arizona and Oxford measured 14C/13C ratios by AMS and determined the 13C/12C ratios using conventional mass spectrometry. Zurich determined both 14C/12C and 13C/12C quasi-simultaneously using AMS only.
The conventional radiocarbon ages were all calculated using the procedures suggested by Stuiver and Polach12, with normalization to Ó13C = -25 0/00, and were accordingly reported in yr BP (years before 1950). The errors, which are quoted in Table 1 at the 1sd level ( sd is standard deviation), include the statistical (counting) error, the scatter of results for standards and blanks, and the uncertainty in the Ó13C determination (Arizona includes the Ó13C error at a later stage, when combining subsample results; Oxford errors below 40 yr are rounded up to 40).
Table 1 Basic Data (individual measurements)
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Pretreatment and
replication codes
Arizona AA-3367 AA-3368 AA-3369 AA-3370
A1.1b* 591±30 A2.1b 922±48 A3.1b 1,838±47 A4.1b 724±42
A1.2b 690±35 A2.2a 986±56 A3.2a(1) 2,041±43 A4.2a 778±88 a, method a
A1.3a 606±41 A2.3a(1) 829±50 A3.3a 1,960±55 A4.3a(1) 764±45 b, method b
A1.4a 701±33 A2.4a(2) 996±38 A3.4a(2) 1,983±37 A4.4a(2) 602±38 ( ), same subsample
A2.5b 894±37 A3.5b 2,137±46 A4.5b 825±44
Ó13C (0/00) -25.0 -23.0 -23.6 -25.0
Oxford 2575 2574 2576 2589
O1.1u 795±65 O2.1u 980±55 O3.1u 1,955±70 O4.2u 785±50 u, unbleached
O1.2b 730±45 O2.1b 915±55 O3.1b 1,975±55 O4.2b(1) 710±40 b, bleached
O1.1b 745±55 O2.2b** 925±45 O3.2b 1,990±50 O4.2b(2) 790±45 ( ), same pretreatment/
run combination
Ó13C***(0/00) -27.0 -27.0 -27.0 -27.0
Zurich ETH-3883 ETH-3884 ETH-3885**** ETH-3882
Z1.1u 733±61 Z2.1u 890±59 Z3.1u 1,984±50 Z4.1u 739±63
Z1.1w 722±56 Z2.1w 1,036±63 Z3.2w 1,886±48 Z4.1w 676±60 u, ultrasonic only
Z1.1s 635±57 Z2.1s 923±47 Z3.2s 1,954±50 Z4.1s 760±66 w, weak
Z1.2w 639±45 Z2.2w 980±50 Z4.2w 646±49 s, strong
Z1.2s 679±51 Z2.2s 904±46 Z4.2s 660±46
ÓC***** (0/00) -25.1 -23.6 -22.0 -25.5
In years BP, corrected for Ó13C fractionation; errors at 1 sd level; see text for pretreatment details.
* The identification code for each measurement shows, in order, the laboratory, sample, measurement run, pretreatment and any replication involved.
** One anomalous replicate (of 6) obtained for independent measurement O2.2b; if rejected it reduces date by 40 yr; final date quoted actually reduced by 20 yr.
*** Measured for samples 1 and 3; assumed for samples 2 and 4.
**** The loose weave of sample Z3.1 led to its disintegration during strong and weak chemical treatments. Z3.2 was centrifuged to avoid the same loss of material.
***** Average of separate determinations by AMS.
Results
On completion of their measurements, the laboratories forwarded their results to the British Museum Research Laboratory for statistical analysis. The individual results as supplied by the laboratories are given in Table 1. Each date represents a unique combination of pretreatment and measurement run and applies to a separate subsample, except where indicated by the identification code. From these data it can be seen that, for each laboratory, there are no significant differences between the results obtained with the different cleaning procedures that each used.
Table 2 Summary of mean radiocarbon dates and assessment of interlaboratory scatter
Sample 1 2 3 4
Arizona 646 ± 31 927 ± 32 1,995 ± 46 722 ± 43
Oxford 750 ± 30 940 ± 30 1,980 ± 35 755 ± 30
Zurich 676 ± 24 941 ± 23 1,940 ± 30 685 ± 34
Unweighted mean* 691 ± 31 936 ± 5 1,972 ±16 721 ± 20
Weighted mean** 689 ± 16 937 ± 16 1,964 ± 20 724 ± 20
X 2 value (2 d.f.) 6.4 0.1 1.3 2.4
Significance *** level (%) 5 90 50 30
Dates are in yr BP. d.f., degrees of freedom.
* Standard errors based on scatter.
** Standard errors based on combined quoted errors.
*** The probability of obtaining, by chance, a scatter among the three dates as high as that observed, under the assumption that the quoted errors reflect all sources of random variation.
The mean radiocarbon dates and associated uncertainties for the four samples, as supplied by each of the three laboratories, are listed in Table 2 and shown in Fig.1. Also included in Table 2 are the overall unweighted and weighted means, the weights being proportional to the inverse squared errors as quoted by the laboratories. The underlying principle of the statistical analysis has been to assume that, unless there is strong evidence otherwise, the quoted errors fully reflect all sources of error and that weighted means are therefore appropriate. An initial inspection of Table 2 shows that the agreement among the three laboratories for samples 2, 3 and 4 is exceptionally good. The spread of the measurements for sample 1 is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted.
More quantitatively, to establish whether the scatter among the three laboratory means was consistent with their quoted errors, a X2 test was applied to the dates for each sample, in accordance with the recommended procedure of Ward and Wilson 13. The results of this test, given in Table 2, show that it is unlikely that the errors quoted by the laboratories for sample 1 fully reflect the overall scatter. The errors might still reflect the uncertainties in the three dates relative to one another, but in the absence of direct evidence on this, it was decided to give the three dates for sample 1 equal weight in determining the final mean, and to estimate the uncertainty in that mean from the scatter of results.
As shown in Table 2, the unweighted mean of the radiocarbon age of sample 1 and its uncertainty are 691 ± 31 yr BP. The confidence limits for sample 1 were obtained by multiplying the uncertainty by td, the value of a Student’s t distribution with d degrees of freedom at the appropriate probability level. The value of d, which lies between the inter- and intra-laboratory degrees of freedom — that is, between 2 and 9 — was estimated at 5 on the basis of an analysis of variance on the 12 individual measurements supplied by the laboratories 14. Individual measurements from a particular laboratory were weighted according to their inverse squared errors, but the contributions from different laboratories were weighted equally, thus ensuring consistency with Table 2. Thus for sample 1, where the error has been estimated from the scatter, ~68% and 95% confidence limits for the true radiocarbon date were found from the 1.1 sd and 2.6 sd errors about the unweighted mean respectively, the multiplying factors being obtained from standard tables of the t5 distribution. However, for samples 2, 3, and 4, the limits were obtained in the usual way from 1 sd and 2 sd quoted errors about the weighted means, assuming normality.
c14-02.jpg
FIG. 2 Calibration of the overall mean radiocarbon date for sample 1 (the Shroud of Turin) using the
‘intercept’ method. (See also Table 3.) Calibration is necessary because of natural variations in atmospheric14C.
The calibration curve for the relevant period is that of Stuiver and Pearson 5, a portion of which is illustrated.
The uncertainty in the calibration curve has been combined with the error in the mean radiocarbon date, giving the 95%
confidence limits on the radiocarbon scale; the error envelope on the curve has therefore been omitted from the diagram.
The stippled areas show how the 95% confidence limits are transformed from the radiocarbon to the calendar scale.
The calendar-age ranges which correspond to the radiocarbon confidence limits are show in Table 3. These were determined from the high-precision curve of Stuiver and Pearson 5 based on dendrochronological dating. Method A (the intercept method) in revision 2.0 of the University of Washington Quaternay Isotope Laboratory Radiocarbon Calibration Program 15 was used. In this method, the error in the calibration curve is first incorporated into the radiocarbon error, thus widening the limits on the radiocarbon scale slightly; calendar ages are then found that correspond to these limits, without transforming the complete probability distribution of radiocarbon dates. No additional uncertainty has been added to take account of the short growth period of textile samples. There is little published guidance on this, although it has been suggested that 15 years should be added in quadrature to the overall uncertainty in the radiocarbon date for samples of growth period less than one year, such as linen. In general, such additional uncertainty would widen the 95% calendar limits by ~ 2 – 4 years at either end, except for sample 3 where the 9 cal BC limit would be changed to 34 cal BC.
The 95% limits for the shroud are also illustrated in Fig. 2, where it is apparent that the calibration of the radiocarbon date for sample 1 gives a double range. The correct transformation of probability distributions from the radiocarbon to the calendar scale is still subject to debate, there being two different methods of dealing with multiple intercepts. However, both methods agree that the major probability peak lies in the earlier of the two ranges, in the 68% range at the end of the thirteenth century. Sample 4 has a very narrow calendar range: this is due to the steep slope in the calibration curve at this point, and is an occasional instance of calibration reducing rather than increasing a confidence range. Sample 3 compares well with the date obtained by conventional radiocarbon dating; there is no evidence for a difference between the two results. The dates for samples 2 and 4 agree with the historical evidence, which places them in the eleventh to twelfth centuries and late thirteenth/early fourteenth centuries AD respectively.
The results, together with the statistical assessment of the data prepared in the British Museum, were forwarded to Professor Bray of the Istituto di Metrologia ‘G. Colonetti’, Turin, for his comments. He confirmed that the results of the three laboratories were mutually compatible, and that, on the evidence submitted, none of the mean results was questionable.
Table 3 Calibrated date ranges at the 68% and 95% confidence levels
Sample Mean Date (yr BP) Calendar date ranges
1* 691 ± 31 68% AD 1273 – 1288
95% AD 1262 – 1312, 1353 – 1384 cal
2 ** 937 ± 16 68% AD 1032 – 1048, 1089 – 1119, 1142 – 1154 cal
95% AD 1026 – 1160 cal
3** 1,964 ± 20*** 68% AD 11-64 cal
95% 9 cal BC – AD 78 cal
4** 724 ± 20 68% AD 1268 – 1278 cal
95% AD 1263 – 1283 cal
* Confidence limits on the radiocarbon scale found from the standard error on the unweighted mean, assuming a t5 distribution (multiplying factors 1.1 and 2.6 for 68% and 95% respectively). Standard error estimated from scatter.
** Confidence limits on the radiocarbon scale found from the standard error on the weighted mean, assuming a normal distribution (multiplying factors 1 and 2 for 68% and 95% limits respectively). Standard error computed from quoted errors.
*** Date by convential radiocarbon dating at the British Museum: 2010 ± 80 yr. BP (MB – 2558).
Conclusions
The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 – 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.
The results of radiocarbon measurements from the three laboratories on four textile samples, a total of twelve data sets, show that none of the measurements differs from its appropriate mean value by more than two standard deviations. The results for the three control samples agree well with previous radiocarbon measurements and/or historical dates.
We thank Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero for allowing us access to the shroud, Professor L. Gonella for his help and support throughout the project and Professor A. Bray for commenting on our statistical assessment of the data. We also thank Miss E. Crowfoot, T. G. H. James, Dr J. Evin, M. Prevost-Macillacy, G. Vial, the Mayor of Saint-Maximin and the Egypt Exploration Society for assistance in obtaining the three known-age control samples. Oxford thank P. H. South (Precision Process (Textiles) Ltd, Derby) for examining and identifying the cotton found on the shroud sample; R. L. Otlet (Isotopes Measurement Laboratory, AERE, Harwell) for stable isotope ratio measurements on two samples; J. Henderson and the Department of Geology, Oxford Polytechnic for undertaking scanning electron microscopy, and SERC for the Special Research Grant which provided the primary support for the Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit. Zurich thank the Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI, CH-5234 Villigen) for technical and financial support. The AMS Programme at Arizona is partially supported by a grant from the NSF.
1. La S. Sindone-Ricerche e studi della Commissione di Esperti nominata dall’ Arcivescovo di Torino, Cardinal Michele Pellegrino, nel 1969 Supplemento Rivista Diocesana Torinese (1976).
2. Jumper, E.J. et al. in Archaeological Chemistry-III (ed. Lambert, J. B.) 447-476 (Am. chem. Soc., Washington, 1984).
3. Burleigh, R., Leese, M. N. & Tite, M.S. Radiocarbon 28, 571-577 (1986).
4. Tite, M.S. Nature 332, 482 (1988)
5. Stuiver, M. & Pearson, G.W. Radiocarbon 28, 805-838 (1986).
6. Slota, P.J., Jull, A. J. T., Linick, T. W. & Toolin, L. J. Radiocarbon 29, 303-306 (1987).
7. Vogel, J. S., Nelson, D.E. & Southon, J.R. Radiocarbon 29, 323-333 (1987).
8. Vogel, J. S., Southon, J.R. & Nelson, D.E. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B29, 50-56 (1987).
9. Linick, T. W., Jull, A. J. T., Toolin, L. J. & Donahue, D. J. Radiocarbon 28, 522-533 (1986).
10. Gillespie, R., Gowlett, J. A. J., Hall, E. T. & Hedges, R. E. M. Archaeometry 26, 15-20 (1984).
11. Suter, M. et. al. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 233[B5], 117-122 (1984).
12. Stuiver, M. & Polach, H. A. Radiocarbon 19, 355-363 (1977).
13. Ward, G. K. & Wilson, S. R. Archaeometry 20, 19-31 (1978).
14. Caulcott, R. & Boddy, R. Statistics for Analytical Chemists (Chapman and Hall, London, 1983).
15. Stuiver, M. & Reimer, P. J. Radiocarbon 28, 1022-1030 (1986).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Crown,
First of all, thanks for all the time you’ve recently taken in laying out the various lines of evidence that you find compelling about miracles. Like Powell said, your sincerity is obvious and appreciated.
I’m still researching your arguments, but I wanted to go ahead and share some initial thoughts. I noticed that when you list out various examples of miracles, you often say you know those claims are legit because of the miracles that you personally experienced. Do you think you would still so readily accept those other claims if it hadn’t been for your personal experiences? Because for me, the fact that I’ve never experienced anything miraculous makes me pretty skeptical of these claims. Even concluding that these events are not scientifically explainable wouldn’t necessarily make me accept them as miracles. After all, there are many things we couldn’t scientifically explain for a long time, until we could. And there are still many things we can’t explain, but it’s likely that we will one day be able to.
When it comes to those personal experiences of yours, I still have questions. And I’m not trying to be rude or dismissive at all — these are just questions that naturally come to me when I hear stories like yours. For instance, how do you know you broke your neck or that you were paralyzed? If I understand you correctly, this all happened within a moment while you were underwater. So there was no trip to the doctor, no x-ray, etc. Are you positive you weren’t just momentarily stunned or shocked? And with the mouse and the lizard, are you sure they were dead? I’m not sure that I would know something like that unless the body showed signs of decomposition, or the throat had been ripped out, etc. And why heal a mouse and a lizard when we have entire hospitals dedicated to terminally ill children?
When it comes to other miracles, I’m still looking into how other religions talk about them. But the information on the Shroud still seems debatable, so far. And the incorruptible bodies doesn’t seem as solid as you’ve presented either. Again, this is still information I’m researching, but this article provides some sources (that I haven’t fully investigated yet), but I thought this paragraph was interesting:
Right now, I’m undecided about much of this. But I think it’s reasonable to be initially skeptical, and I hope you understand why most of us would be.
Anyway, it’s getting late here, and I’ve said enough for now. Thanks again for all the time you’ve taken lately…
LikeLike
I know that was a long post, but in any debate it is only fair that both sides get equal time. I think we are now even.
You are right, Nate. I will attempt to be a little more diplomatic. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josh, I’ve read all your comments on this post, and many of them, especially this one makes me think you are just a theist version of me. Your first sentence here resonates quite a bit with me.
I really liked your view of hell. It seems to go even farther than what I read in that Capon book you recommended. The inclusive nature of it is something that I think would improve society if it was more prevalent in religious circles.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That was some very detailed info, Gary. Thanks!
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure, Gary that Unk is referring to me. I’m not as openminded as Nate, and have no problem demonstrating that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, you are an old fossil, arch 😉
LikeLike