‘Proof!’

A controversial modern question is ‘do science and religion mix’? Much of the reasoning in the secular society answers with an emphatic ‘no’. It would be compared to mixing oil and water. It is worth exploring this view in the context what is often perceived as being the end product of science. Proof.

Some modern day secular naturalistic scientists such as Nicolas Sarzeaud, Andrea Nicolotti and Cicero Moraes propose that Sindonologists, those who study the Shroud and err on the side of authenticity, have created a pseudo-science all of their own, in which a pre-determined bias is evident. However, do these critics themselves come to the table with their own predetermined bias? Is their criticism a form of projection?

We are all aware that on both sides of the argument there is a strong desire to get proof, one way or the other. This was so readily apparent in the media coverage given to Hall, Tite and Hedges standing together on the steps of the British Museum in London making their proud proclamation of a 95% confidence in their date of 1260 to 1390. This result has since been undermined by the weight of contradictory evidence and in the light of the raw data being obtained through the freedom of information act by Tristan Casabianca et al, however it is still the one thing that many people pick up on to ‘prove’ that the Shroud is a medieval artifact.

One of the main characters in this narrative was Prof Teddy Hall of the Oxford University carbon dating laboratory. Strangely, he actually contradicted his 95% confidence statement when he was later quoted as saying that “archaeologists should never find themselves in a position where a key argument or interpretation is based on a single measuring technique “. Yet this is an exact description of the conclusion resulting from the radiocarbon testing scientists in 1988. In fact, not only was it a single measuring technique, it was also a single sample that was tested rather than a number of pieces taken from various areas of the cloth. It was a single piece cut into four, taken from a corner which was also badly contaminated, the dates varying by up to 200 years from left to right.

Pseudo-science claims

At the recent Shroud Conference at St. Louis, one of the keynote speakers, Tristan Casabianca gave a presentation entitled ‘The Shroud of Turin in the quest for credible research and warranted conclusions ‘. He asked the question “Is there serious research on the Shroud of Turin”? This being in the context of criticism from (in the main) Nicolotti and Sarzeaud who both strongly oppose the authenticist approach. As we have said, they accuse all authenticists as indulging in pseudo-science (which of course could never be said about their own work!) and claim that all research is influenced by a predetermined agenda.

Sarzeaud, who has appeared more recently with his work on Nicole Oresme, says that “ No other historical object has given rise to the creation of a separate science and that the findings supporting authenticity all emerged from within Sindonology itself, directed, published and publicised through the same networks”. In other words everything has been made to fit with their predetermined belief. He says that they have created a ‘methodological arsenal’ and that they are bound to come up with the conclusion that “the Shroud is an incomparable object”. They propose however that all of their own work, books and media coverage are purely objective and stem from a pure vein of study.

Of course the accusation of ‘pseudo science’ is not a new one. In the BSTS newsletter 98, Barrie Schwortz’s final article was titled ‘Enough!’. He said “For the last 45 years I have quietly put up with the attacks and false claims repeatedly made about STURP and its team members by Shroud sceptics . The have referred to STURP’s published science as the ‘rantings of believers’ and the team members as ‘ pseudo scientific nutters’ or ‘mid-level scientists’. It is one thing to be critical of a researchers methods and conclusions. This is integral to the scientific method and why peer review is so important. But it it a completely different case when one directs personal ad-hominem attacks at the researchers themselves”.

Prof. Sarzeaud said himself when he released a map showing his medieval studies that “No doubt it will be a gold mine for all sorts of far-fetched theories from our sindonologist friends,” but thinks it can’t do any harm.

It was said of Prof. Teddy Hall regarding the Carbon date testing that “He suspected what the answer would be, being a firm non-believer, but prejudice was never allowed to interfere with science. The pursuit of truth as revealed by science was a firm principle with him”. (The Independent Aug 2001).

It is strange how often non-believers like Hall, Sarzeaud, Moraes, Nicolotti come to the table with a totally ‘objective’ approach which is seemingly unique to the naturalistic mind. To quote Nicolotti “The Shroud offers a useful case for understanding how insistence on the relic’s authenticity, alongside a lack of interest on the part of mainstream science, leaves ample room for pseudoscientific arguments.”

John Maddox

Is there any truth in this seemingly arrogant proposal? Our own editor Michael Kowalski wrote an article entitled ‘John Maddox and the publication of the C-14 test report’. This looked at the scientific paper presented to and published in the prestigious ‘Nature’ scientific journal shortly after the labs produced their findings on the radiocarbon dating. Whilst acknowledging that Maddox was known to be an excellent editor in general, he proposes that his handling of radiocarbon dating had a very subjective agenda. Maddox was closely associated with CSICOP ‘The Committee for Skeptical Enquiry’, asecular humanist society committed to the debunking of so called ‘myths’, with The Shroud being one of those on their agenda. In the article he looked at other work which had faced a biased agenda by Maddox including a research paper by Prof. Colin Humphreys and Graeme Waddington which determined the precise date of the Crucifixion. This paper received excellent feedback from peer reviewers but its publication was opposed by Maddox purely because of its religious content. He says “John Maddox clearly allowed his personal beliefs to influence his editorial decisions “. Interestingly Maddox was later honoured by CSICOP for his work.

Our previous editor Mark Guscin once wrote the following regarding the radiocarbon scientists:

“There is a very widespread idea that Shroudies are a group of religious fanatics, while ‘scientists’ are a homogenous group of people (in clean white coats and in nice clean laboratories) who are extremely knowledgeable, calm and never moved by such earthly concerns as money, fame or personal ambition. And they all agree with each other, because science is one and true.
The scientists involved in the carbon dating were as human as you could imagine; fame-seeking, selfish,money-grabbing and disloyal . They were hopelessly disorganised, seemed to have little idea about what they were dealing with and to care about it even less, they showed an unbelievable lack of respect for anyone who didn’t share their own ideas, and that includes other scientists involved in the dating”.

It would seem therefore that those who hold the medieval hypothesis are equally likely to be as subjective as they claim all those who hold an authentic stance to be and that science itself is subject to the frailties of human personality.

So is proof the natural conclusion and purpose of scientific study? Or are we focusing and expecting something that is always a step further away? On a recent BBC radio four programme called Free Thinking, a panel of those in the scientific world looked at the question on what is ‘The Status of Science’.
Much of this was about the public perception of science and what should be expected from it. A wide range of subjects were covered. I thought that some of the words spoken however were very relevant to the Shroud. Here are a few:

Much of what was said seems to reflect on the work currently undertaken by Sindonologists and highlights that their work is definitely not ‘pseudo-science’, it is an investigative accumulation of all the evidence from many different fields. It seems to indicate that people like Nicolotti and Sarzeaud are those involved in the very thing they accuse others of and that their claims for definitive ‘proof’ for their work of debunking the Shroud as a medieval fake is in itself a bridge too far and that their criticism of pro-authenticity proponents is itself based on a pre-determined bias.

Jesus was once asked “Who do you say that I am”? Likewise the mystery of the Shroud continues to ask the question “What do you say that I am “? Science will not and cannot be expected to provide a final definitive answer and those who claim such a high percentage of definitive proof based on a single measuring technique should look at themselves before accusing others of ‘pseudo-science’.

Dr John Jackson in his forward to his work ‘The Shroud of Turin’ ‘ A critical summary of observations, data and hypothesis quotes Pope Benedict XVI : “If the truth were a mere mathematical formula, in some sense it would impose itself by its own power. But if Truth is Love, it calls for faith, for the ‘yes’ of our hearts.” This poses the question, can science and proof ever be an end in itself or should we be looking also for the deeper mystery that the image on the cloth presents? Recently I have read an intended derogatory term applied to many in the world of Sindonology “Sindonevangelists”. Whilst it was intended to deride those whose research was said to be superficial, it clearly misses the point that if the Shroud is indeed the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, then at this point science and ‘proof’ can proceed no further.