MetaCatholic

Antonio Lombatti asked me if I had the time to take a look at tonight’s BBC documentary on The Turin Shroud. (This iPlayer link will work for the next six days for those who can get the service.) He was particularly interested in what Professor Christopher Ramsey of the C14 testing laboratory in Oxford had to say in the documentary. (Ramsey was part of the team that did the 1988 dating of the shroud to the early 14th century.)

I’ll answer that question first, and briefly, but then say a little more. All Ramsey had to say was, effectively, “We’re always open to considering likely and realistic theories of contamination that might help us refine our work. At the moment there’s no evidence that bears them out.” The particular view under consideration was being put forward by the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado. In brief, they argue that there was some unusual reactions between atmospheric carbon monoxide and the linen of the shroud, which led to a misdating. Ramsey accepts that their theory conjecture offers a possible explanation of how relatively minor contamination could produce a major displacement in the dating. So far, however, there’s no evidence to suggest that such a reaction between linen and carbon monoxide could occur. The team at the Colorado centre are working on finding a way in which they can get similar linen to react to carbon monoxide.

This latter point raises the main difficulty I had with the BBC programme. It essentially consisted of Rageh Omar interviewing a range of people who believe the shroud is genuine and that they have supporting evidence for it. The Colorado team were the dominant participants. Ramsey was, as far as I could tell, the only non-believer in the shroud’s authenticity. The quality of the evidence offered varied considerably: from reasonable point to what looked a little bit like wishful thinking. Most of it was less original than the programme suggested. In this respect the official position of the Vatican is worth noting. The Shroud of Turin is an important devotional object to focus the believer’s attention on the crucifixion, whatever its history and origin turns out to be.

In my view there are two significant arguments against the medieval date, neither of which are conclusive. The first is that no-one has, as far as I know (and indeed as far as this programme told me) worked out how the image might have been created. The second is that (shades of arguments over the BBC Passion) the Shroud almost certainly shows nail marks in the wrists, and possible through the sides of the heels. This would make it unique among medieval (and most contemporary) art. It is an extremely odd thing for a forger to do. Against these arguments, however, stands the carbon dating.

I confess to rarely giving the Shroud much thought. Even if it does prove to be genuine, what does it add, except a rather romantic historicism, and the settlement of Mark Goodacre’s argument with the Telegraph. And for those who want or need to believe then surely it is not inconceivable that the resurrection produced its own surge of inexplicable cosmic energy that forever rendered scientific method unreliable in this, as in all matters pertaining to his resurrection. That would, of course, be deeply ironic, since those who are most passionate about the shroud seem to believe that it somehow provides scientifically testable evidence for the resurrection.

John Hobbins posts on a topic I’ve been meaning to cover for some time and not quite got round to. I too am something of a sceptic, and like him note the range of contradictory evidence around, summed up in the paradox of the rapid calving of the Antarctic ice shelf at the same time as the continental ice cap there is the thickest it has been according to known records. The sheer range of the contradictory evidence, however, makes me sceptical of any overarching theory. Most of what is said on both sides of this argument doesn’t sound to me like a full explanation. So in the interim I make the following observations.

• I find it hard to trust any climate prognosis for the next fifty years when those made for the next week are so inaccurate.
• There is a fairly large amount of money in this field of research, and scare stories tend to help shake the money loose, especially from governments and foundations.
• There is an even larger amount of money around in the businesses who resist environmental expenditure as economically damaging, and they too are paying for research.
• The global climate is such a complex system, that chaos theory should make us suspicious of simple cause and effect explanations.
• We should learn to distrust the media need for simple sound-bite stories. Those that carry the most dramatic illustrations are the ones we need to be most suspicious of. Emotional and graphic depiction easily results in the suspension of reason.
• It would be both foolish and arrogant of humans to assume that they don’t need to pay attention to their environment and accept that carelessness may lead to adverse impacts.
• Christian stewardship and the biblical vision of the human vocation as priests of creation demands that we accept the responsibility to manage the planet for the best advantage of all, and that dismissing environmental issues is as much a heresy as it is anything else.

Christians shouldn’t need scaring into caring for God’s garden.