Recently, some prominent defenders of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin have produced a spate of online videos promoting their point of view. We’ll have a look at two of these below. At first blush, they sounded pretty convincing – especially their attempts to debunk the carbon-14 dating for the Shroud to somewhere between 1260 and 1390. I then did some online research, and I came across some very convincing rebuttals of popular pro-Shroud arguments. Interestingly, these rebuttals were made by a Catholic science teacher named Hugh Farey, a current former editor of the British Society for the Turin Shroud newsletter, and a former Shroud believer. I was highly impressed with Hugh Farey’s eloquence as a speaker. Shroud believers will find his arguments devastating. I post them here for readers’ interest.
5 Popular Arguments for the Shroud of Turin Debunked
UPDATE: In this video, Hugh Farey argues that: (i) contrary to popular belief, the wounds on the back of the man on the Shroud do not match the scourge marks that would have been left by a Roman flagrum (or whip), and in any case, Jesus’ back would have been a mangled, bloody mess after flogging; (ii) oft-repeated claims that the hand wounds on the Shroud go through the wrist are mistaken (but see here), as are claims that Jesus would have fallen off the Cross if he hadn’t been nailed through the wrist; (iii) frequently made assertions that the man on the Shroud had a blood type of AB rest on highly questionable evidence, as do similar assertions made about the Sudarium of Oviedo; (iv) the pollen found on the Shroud does not tie it to Palestine, contrary to claims made by the Swiss criminologist Max Frei contended back in the 1970s; and (v) there is no good reason to believe that the limestone minerals on the Shroud come from limestone in Palestine: other locations (e.g. France) are a better match.
The Shroud of Turin is a Forgery
UPDATE: In this video, Hugh Farey argues that: (i) the carbon-14 dating of the Shroud, which places it in the Middle Ages, is well-established (see also here); (ii) the herringbone weave found on the Shroud comports better with a medieval, Northern European origin than a first-century, Palestinian origin; and (iii) the image on the Shroud is more likely to be artificial than natural in origin.
Hugh Farey’s blog
British Society for the Turin Shroud Archive
British Society for the Turin Shroud Archive
Articles by Hugh Farey on the Shroud
The Medieval Shroud (Part 1) What was it for? How was it done? Who? When? Where?
The Medieval Shroud (Part 2) No Case for Authenticity: A thorough analysis of all the evidence
The Medieval Shroud (Part 3) Essays around the Shroud of Turin
The radiocarbon data were correct
A review of three recent papers on the Shroud
Interestingly, Hugh Farey took part in a very civilized debate on the Resurrection with Ben Watkins on the Resurrection in April 2023:
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? A Debate between a Catholic and an Atheist
Readers may be interested in checking out this Website by Daniel Porter, whose articles on the Shroud are very balanced:
Two pro-Shroud videos by Barrie Schwortz and Fr. Andrew Dalton
And now, here are two videos by pro-Shroud proponents: an Orthodox Jew and former Shroud skeptic who now believes that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus but contends that the image was formed by a purely natural process (Barrie Schwortz), and a Catholic priest who thinks there’s a very strong case for the authenticity of the Shroud but who is skeptical of naturalistic explanations for the image (Fr. Andrew Dalton). By the way, Fr. Dalton is a good friend of Barrie Schwortz.
“Is the Shroud of Turin Authentic?”
(Barrie Schwortz, interviewed by James Valliant, Jacob Berman and James Riley on History Valley, April 1, 2023)
“Why The Shroud Of Turin Could Be The Authentic Burial Cloth Of Jesus”
(Fr. Andrew Dalton, interviewed by Cameron Bertuzzi on Capturing Christianity, September 23, 2023)
Is there any physical evidence for the Shroud of Turin’s existence prior to the thirteenth century?
Barrie Schwortz argues that the Shroud dates from prior to the 13th century, citing the Hungarian Pray Codex as an important piece of evidence. But is it? Here’s what Hugh Farey says about the Hungarian Pray Codex in his article, “The Medieval Shroud 2”:
The Pray Codex sepulchre is decorated with small red crosses, a common Byzantine ‘polystaurion’ design, and its lid with a number of concentric zigzag patterns, like the outlines of stepped pyramids whose bases are the edges of the lid. The angel stands like a surfer on this lid, pointing to the crumpled graveclothes on top. What brings the image to the attention of sindonologists, however, are two groups of little circles, apparently with neither functional nor decorative value, on the sepulchre and its lid. Their superficial resemblance to the alleged ‘poker holes’ on the Shroud has stimulated a huge, and hugely contrived, symbology, in which the rectangular, ‘ziggurat’-painted lid becomes the herringbone weave of the Shroud itself, and the whole page is esoteric evidence that the artist must have copied from it. Although it must be admitted that the little patterns of circles are not easy to explain, the elaborations built thereupon are only justifiable in the light of pre-conviction.
In an earlier article titled, The Pray Codex (British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter Number 83, December 2016), Farey points out that the zigzag designs on the Pray Codex “form a series of concentric triangles, rather like ziggurats, and in no way look anything like herringbone [weave].”
And here’s a picture of the Hungarian Pray Codex:
Incidentally, the herringbone weave on the Shroud, which is claimed to be represented on the Hungarian Pray Codex, is actually evidence against its authenticity: Jews in first-century Palestine were not buried in cloths woven in this way (see here and here). In his essay, “The Medieval Shroud 2”, Hugh Farey notes that looms capable of weaving a 3/1 twill “are unknown to history, archaeology or literature before about the twelfth century” (p. 20).
For his part, Fr. Andrew Dalton attempts to identify the Shroud of Turin with the Image of Edessa. But as Hugh Farey remarks in an article titled, “The Pray Codex” (British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter Number 83, December 2016), “No contemporary descriptions of the Image of Edessa suggest that it was anything other than a portrait, and one showing Christ very much alive at that.”
Farey makes some additional comments on the Image of Edessa in his essay, “The Medieval Shroud 2”:
The most ardent attempts [to identify the Turin Shroud with early Christian relics kept in Constantinople] involve the celebrated Image of Edessa, which was brought to Constantinople in great ceremony in 944, and deposited in the church of the Virgin of the Pharos, where it quietly lost importance among a number of artefacts more closely associated with Jesus, finally disappearing at the Sack of Constantinople in 1204. Legend claimed that this image had been created specifically for Abgar, King of Edessa, by Christ himself, although, as we shall see, details vary… (p. 38)
In spite of some determined attempts to claim that the Image of Edessa can be identified with the Shroud, in fact, as will be seen, it vanished into obscurity quite soon after arriving in Constantinople, while various cloths associated with the burial of Jesus continued to be venerated quite publicly. Nothing suggests that they were the same thing… (p. 39)
From the vast majority of accounts, then, it is clear that the burial cloth of Jesus and the Mandylion of Edessa were different objects, and that neither carried a full-length image (let alone a double image). (p. 43)
Does the crown of thorns on the Shroud support its authenticity?
Fr. Dalton also cites the crown of thorns on the Shroud as evidence of its authenticity, but Hugh Farey will have none of it. In the same essay, he declares:
Firstly there is insufficient evidence on the Shroud to suggest that the ‘crown’ injuries were caused by anything other than a circlet, and secondly, that there is no archaeological evidence for a cap-shaped crown anyway. When challenged, archaeologists cite images of kings such as Xerxes (from a thousand kilometres away and five hundred years earlier), or more realistically the recently defeated kings of Armenia, from two thousand kilometres away, both of whom are illustrated wearing columnar crowns which may indeed have a cap-like element. However, from Judea itself, every single representation of a first century ruler, such as the Herods or Caesars, show them wearing simple circlets or wreaths. The Gospels unanimously use the word στέφανον, derived from words meaning entwine or wreath in a circle.
Blood from a puncture wound on the scalp of a man with thick hair does not ooze neatly to the surface and then trickle down in little zigzags, as seen on the Shroud. It mats the hair stickily. Even so, Sebastian Rodante considered the depictions of flow on the forehead so accurate that he could identify the pulsing flow of arteries and the more continuous oozing of veins, and thus the actual blood vessels which had been punctured. This is a fanciful over-interpretation. (p. 32)
The strongest argument for the Shroud’s authenticity?
To my mind, the strongest-sounding argument in favor of the Shroud’s authenticity put forward by Fr. Dalton is his claim that the bloodstains were deposited on the Shroud before the image. Fr. Dalton points out, quite reasonably, that a forger would have made the image first, and then added the bloodstains. I emailed Hugh Farey on this point, and here is his prompt and very courteous reply (bolding is mine):
Hi Vincent,
Thanks for emailing. The evidence that the blood on the Shroud arrived before the image is extremely weak. John Heller and Alan Adler observed that the fibrils of the Shroud appeared corroded in image areas but not in non-image areas. Eugenia Nitowski, who took dozens of micrographs of the sticky tape slides, and myself, who has studied her photographs, do not observe this corrosion, and Ray Rogers denied it existed at all. Heller and Adler found that if the blood was removed from a blood fibre, the fibre itself looked more like a non-image fibre than an image fibre, but for a start it is impossible clearly to distinguish between the two, and secondly, even in intense image areas, the proportion of image fibres is very small, so that any blood placed on top of it is more likely to be placed on a non-image fibre than an image fibre. This is only exacerbated by the fact that the uppermost fibres of all the bloodstains have mostly been corroded away.
Fr Dalton is perfectly correct that it is very unlikely that a forger would have placed the blood on the Shroud first, but I don’t think he did. However, I do believe that the Shroud is a print off a carved wooden block. If the forger first painted the block with whatever ink he used, and then painted blood onto the places he wanted bloodstained, and then a cloth over the whole thing, the blood would contact the cloth before the ink below it. I don’t think that’s what happened, but it could support the “blood first” hypothesis if necessary.
I hope that helps,
Best wishes,
Hugh
Why a 200-nanometer-thick image could still be natural
Fr. Dalton also makes much of the depth of the image on the Shroud: a mere 200 to 500 nanometers. But as we’ve seen, Hugh Farey addresses this issue in his video, “5 Popular Arguments for the Shroud of Turin Debunked”: he creates an image on camera using a marker pen and a cloth handkerchief woven with a herringbone weave. The image penetrates only the uppermost fibers of the cloth. Fr. Dalton also contends that the limestone on the Shroud matches that found in Palestine like a fingerprint, but Farey refutes this claim as flat-out false in the same video.
Can we trust the carbon-14 dating of the Shroud?
Finally, Barrie Schwortz takes issue with the carbon-14 dating, on the grounds that the samples were taken from a single section of the Shroud, and that the laboratories which dated the Shroud refused to release their raw data until they were legally compelled to do so. Fr. Dalton also questions the carbon-14 dating, citing a paper by Tristan Casabianca (Archaeometry, Volume 61, Issue 5, pages 1223-1231, first published 22 March 2019). However, the paper’s conclusion, after examining the original data, is relatively modest, recommending a re-analysis: “Without this re-analysis, it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers ‘conclusive evidence’ that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth.” Philip Ball, who was on the editorial team of Nature when it published the original 1989 article Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin (P. E. Damon et al, Nature volume 337, pages 611–615 (1989)) debunking the Shroud as a medieval forgery, recently wrote a follow-up article in Chemistry World (“Twists and Turins”, 9 April 2019) commenting on attempts to undermine the date (1260-1390), in which he declares: “Nothing published so far on the shroud, including this paper, offers compelling reason to think that the 1989 study was substantially wrong – but apparently it was not definitive either.” For his part, Hugh Farey continues to defend the medieval carbon-14 date. In the Appendix to his essay, “The Medieval Shroud 2”, he remarks: “Depending on the age of the alleged contamination, there would have to be about four times as much contamination as original material to skew the date appropriately” (p. 55).
Concluding thoughts
Finally, for balance, let me recommend these two articles from Daniel Porter’s blog, shroudstory.com:
After 23 Years Studying the Shroud, This Is What I Think
What do people think?
Hi Vincent! I didn’t realise that Skeptical Zone was you! Thank you for your generous comments. For the equanimity of those few authenticists who will blow a gasket if they hear me described as the current editor of the newsletter of the British Society for the Turin Shroud, I should point out that time has passed, and I’m not any more.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Welcome to TSZ, Mr Farey. I’m sure Vincent will explain his interesting relationship with this site and another, now defunct, Uncommon Descent, where we have observed Vincent’s views on Christianity evolve over the last twenty years.
My basic thought (I’m a life-long atheist) about the shroud is who is it for? It is fascinating as an artefact and it would be great if new scientific research were permitted but whatever the outcome, it would not impinge on my atheism one jot.
Conversely, for those with deep religious beliefs, why would they need this to be genuine?
My suspicion is that religious relics were a very lucrative industry in the early Mediaeval period and that there is no provenance for the shroud prior to the thirteenth century. I could be wrong about the Mediaeval origin but if further tests showed it to be older, that would still be far from connecting it to a real middle eastern Jesus.
ETA fingers are too fat for a small screen
@ Mr Farey
I once cycled to Malvern from near Redditch as an eleven-year-old. 😉
Hi Hugh,
Thanks very much for your reply. I’m off to work in a second, but to be brief, I would describe myself as a Catholic with a strong skeptical streak. I’ve also corrected the opening paragraph to say that you’re a former editor of BSTS. I’ll say more later. Thanks for your comments, Alan, and a good day to you both. Cheers.
Hi Vincent
I agree that the carbon dating is the strongest evidence against the shrouds authenticity. The problem with the dating data is it may have been caused by dating a piece of the cloth that was repaired.
In addition the cloth and the sudarium of Oviedo have the same rare blood type and the sudarium has chain of custody back to the 6th century.
Hi Cole,
I think the evidence for repair is insufficiently strong. The area tested was throughly examined by at least four recognised textile experts, three of whom were specifically looking for, and said there was no sign of, repair, and one of whom did not mention that he thought there was one. There is some other suggestion that a repair could possible, but it is far from conclusive.
The blood type of very old blood is very difficult to ascertain, and that of the Sudarium was particularly uncertain, even to the pathologist who attempted to determine it. I’m afraid I find nothing to link the sixth century Spanish Sudarium with the thirteenth century French Shroud, and nothing to link either of them to first century Israel.
Others, of course, disagree.
Not normally one for watching videos, I have to say I just watched Hugh Farey in the video Vincent linked to and was most impressed. Very entertaining and thought-provoking.
Hi everyone,
I’ve tidied up my OP a little, adding a couple of updates and explanatory comments shown in green.
Hi Hugh. Thanks for your response above. As Alan mentioned, I’ve been writing articles for The Skeptical Zone since 2016. Before then, I used to write articles for the Uncommon Descent blog until a book review of Douglas Axe’s Undeniable got me invited to leave that blog, and join this one.
Hugh Farey covers this with humour starting here.
Hugh Farey,
https://www.seetheholyland.net/tag/tunic-of-argenteuil/
Hi Hugh
I found this summary with a third relic with rare AB blood. This also mentions the challenge with carbon dating as it mentions all three relics are dated after the first century AD.
Alan Fox,
Hi Alan
There may be more to the story.
Raymond Rogers says carbon dating of the shroud worthless
Bill, would you mind putting long URLs into a link. (Applies to everyone). Raw URLs distort the phone display.
Fun fact. I’m group AB.
This Raymond Rogers?
I read a couple of the links, and what Rogers is saying is that the very small sample of the shroud subjected to carbon dating was in fact a patch of cotton carefully sewn into the shroud and then dyed the same color as the linen of the rest of the shroud. Which means the portion carbon dated was not part of the original shroud. I didn’t learn who had selected the sample to be dated, but apparently subsequent requests to date any of the actual shroud have been denied.
The claim that fabric was patched crops up after the radio carbon dating result. Seems odd it was so invisible. I’m sure if an unpatched sample were allowed to be taken, the dating procedure would settle the “issue”.
As it involves destruction of the sample, I guess one can understand the reluctance.
Vincent, to Hugh:
A very strong skeptical streak, which I admire greatly. You’re scrupulous about not settling for inadequate arguments in defense of your Catholic faith. I think it will lead you to deconvert eventually, but even if it doesn’t, you’ll be in a much better position than fellow believers who vigorously apply skepticism to the arguments of nonbelievers but go easy on their own.
I know you’ve taken some flak from fellow Christians who see your skepticism as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, but their criticism is misguided. It’s to their benefit not to rely on bad arguments, both in propping up their own faith as well as in their apologetic efforts. You’re doing them a service by explaining why those arguments fail.
Yes, pointing to the weaknesses of pro-Christian arguments lends ammunition to critics of Christianity. But I know from personal experience that you don’t hesitate to point to weaknesses you perceive in the arguments put forward by nonbelievers, either. You’re an equal opportunity skeptic. We all — believers and nonbelievers alike — benefit from that sort of skepticism, at least if we’re honestly seeking the truth.
Hugh has clearly applied the same sort of healthy skepticism both to pro-Shroud and anti-Shroud claims, and that’s exactly how it should be.
Thank you for all your comments. One or two responses, if I may…
1) I don’t know much about the Tunic of Argenteuil, and am not aware of any scientific tests done on it. Anyone can say it has AB blood on it, but actually demonstrating that is difficult to do. If anyone has links to the experiments, if any, carried out and where they are published I’d be happy to explore further.
2) Ray Rogers did not study any areas of cloth. He studied short samples of thread and sticky tape slides of fibres. Although he found an admixture of cotton fibres, he did not establish that there was any cotton thread, nor that cotton fibres were not integral to the linen thread all over the Shroud. He seems to have discovered some kind of pigment on some of the fibres from the area, which I think is related to the Holland backing cloth. His peer-reviewed paper, published in the journal he founded and was editor of for most of its life, is very poorly referenced.
3) I consider skepticism to be the strength of Christianity. The fact that it is a belief system does not exempt it (or any other belief system) from rational criticism, which, if it were to fail, would render it worthless. As it happens, I think Christianity is robustly rational, and have no fear from detractors. If “pro-Christian” arguments are “weak” then they deserve all that’s coming to them!
Alan Fox,
Here you can see it with an SEM.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/brown1.pdf
I would appreciate a brief description of the Christianity you consider robustly rational. The descriptions I have read vary from dubious to inconsistent to arbitrary, but I am not a Christian and really don’t understand the faith as a whole (or even why faith is important if Christianity is robustly rational).
Hi Flint! I guess I’m a thinking Christian, but certainly not a theologian so will probably go further out on a limb than many would advise, but I’m quite notorious for planting my big feet clumsily where angels fear to tread so I’m willing to have a go. On the other hand I’ve no idea if this comments section, or this blog post, or even this site, is the proper place for this topic, so if Vincent thinks it’s better we go elsewhere, I guess that’s OK too. If I set out some fundamental principles you can either guess where I would go further if required, or make further inquiries.
Anyway. A religion, it seems to me, is at heart more a modus operandi for a society than a belief in the supernatural, which, rather counter-intuitively, I don’t think is fundamental. Behaving properly to one another is more important than worshipping the numinous. Jesus went on about this several times, so there’s a bit of a link there. The modus operandi includes respect for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (of course), and in particular the sacredness of human life. Much of Christianity develops from there. I think a particular feature is also justice for all, and a denial that might is right, and the ability to let bygones by bygones and ‘pick yourself up and start all over again.’
Anyway, other social structures are available, which may include denying women any education or stoning people to death, but I think Christianity gets most things right, and where it doesn’t, it’s trying to adjust to changing natural circumstances. If we are heading towards a genuinely global society, where everyone enjoys the same rights and responsibilities, I think Christianity as a system will serve the world best. If one removes the supernatural for a moment, and look at purely humanitarian principles, such as the United Nations 17 goals for sustainable development, you’ll basically find the gospel of Matthew holding them all up.
I think I’ll stop there, as this comment has gone on a bit, bit will be happy to develop the theme if people want. We’ll get to Christ, God and all that stuff eventually!
Blimey, Hugh, that sounds like socialism.😱
(Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
Humans are social animals and the overlap between culture, politics, and religion makes it difficult to analyse the root cause of past and present human conflicts.
I’ve read that Roman society of the first century expected public participation in religious rites but your private beliefs were your own. Catholic confession seems a very different business
Hi everyone,
Here’s an interesting item of news. I posted a very polite comment with a link to this post on Cameron Bertuzzi’s “Capturing Christianity” Website nearly 24 hours ago, in response to his interview with Fr. Andrew Dalton, but it seems to have disappeared. I wonder why.
By the way, Hugh, I’m quite happy for you to defend your theological views on this thread, just as I’m happy for other contributors to criticize them as they see fit. Your views on the proper definition of religion sound very refreshing.
Thank you for your kind words, keiths. I shall endeavor to stay honest and continue critiquing bad theological arguments, whether for or against religion, in the future. Cheers.
Well, OK, but what you emphasize is a system of behavioral rules, principles, and practices which facilitate people getting along with one another, following the golden rule, and working together cooperatively. My limited reading is that most of the world’s religions espouse similar rules, but the “ornamentation” piled onto these rules varies. In other words, societies following the principles of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. would be quite similar.
So if I’m reading you correctly, you regard the more religious aspect of such systems as more of an enforcement mechanism, the “or else” for misbehavior. Unfortunately, this religious aspect leads all too many people to use it as rationalization for behaviors quite opposite to what the religion teaches. Somehow, their religion justifies, even requires, selfishness. I suspect most atheists behave as Jesus recommended, and don’t need the Jesus part to enforce it. Decency, honesty, consideration aren’t things that make a religion rational, they make society possible. The numinous aspect might be an effect, not a cause.
Or humanism.
Hi Flint, I agree with most for that. Most of the world’s religions are indeed fairly similar in aspiration, and anyway people, like any social animals, tend to behave in an evolutionarily successful way without direction, at least in small, technologically simple societies. The ‘ornamentation’ has in the past been a way of co-ordinating, administering and communicating more complex aspects, developed as societies themselves have become more complex.
I think the word ‘enforcement’ focusses on far too narrow an aspect of this. It really doesn’t matter what side of the road people drive on, as long as they all chose the same side, and a decision having been made by an ‘authority,’ by and large it does not have to be enforced. The same is true of most laws. Sure, there are people who break them, out of ignorance or malice, but the vast majority of people don’t.
“Authority” should be a demonstration of goodness and reason, not the imposition of something unreasonable. What distinguishes specific religions is in how their adherents understand the authority under which they choose to act. If it is arbitrary or whimsical, it might be seen as a kind of earthly tyrant, and why should one earthly tyrant’s whims be obeyed ore than any other? If it is reasonable, it might be seen more as “the natural way of things,” i.e. not human-individual-based at all, but generally universally applicable, and for the benefit of all.
I think capricious authority was what prevented religion taking any hold on me in my youth. Mind you the C of E was becoming pretty agnostic by then.
Honest to God
Hugh:
Doesn’t that put you at odds with most Catholics? Mainstream Catholics obviously think that behaving properly toward others is important, but they consider belief in God and the divinity of Jesus to be essential for salvation, so my guess is that they would regard that as more fundamental.
Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic, and do you accept the standard supernatural claims that are made as a part of Catholic doctrine? The existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the resurrection, heaven, transubstantiation, etc.?
A couple of unrelated things:
I was turned off religion as a kid by the story of Abraham and Isaac. Just didn’t want to be associated with people who thought that was a cool story.
Christians tend to favor James (good works) or Paul (faith).
I think this is largely an inborn personality trait.
petrushka:
That one really shook me as a kid, too. It’s a creepy story. And it paints both Abraham and God in a terrible light. I’ll bet Isaac was really careful around Abraham after that. You never know when Dad might start hearing voices again.
For God to put Abraham and Isaac through that ordeal was unconscionable. And if God is omniscient (as modern Christians believe), then there was no need for it in the first place, because God already knew that Abraham was faithful.
Abraham is held up as a moral exemplar for his unquestioning obedience to God, but his behavior was actually disgraceful. He didn’t question God, he didn’t argue, he didn’t bargain — he just blindly proceeded to (almost) kill his son, and he would have gone through with it if God hadn’t stopped him.
I’ve heard Christians argue that it was OK for God to pull this stunt, because after all, he didn’t actually let Abraham kill Isaac. They aren’t accounting for Abraham’s anguish during this long three-day journey, knowing that he would be killing his beloved son at the end of it. They aren’t accounting for Isaac’s terror at being tied up on an altar while his dad raised a knife, ready to plunge it into his body. And all because God wanted to see how willing Abraham was to grovel and do the unspeakable, merely because God had ordered it.
It reminds me of the story of Job, which is similarly creepy.
I always thought the Abraham/Isaac story would have made better moral sense if it had unfolded like this:
God decides to test Abraham and orders him to sacrifice his son. Abraham responds “Lord, I know you’re testing me to see if I’m depraved enough to do something evil simply because I’m ordered to. I won’t do it.” And God replies “Well done, Abraham. You passed the test.”
I might mention that in the military, in wartime, we were taught to disobey unlawful orders. And we could be prosecuted if we knowingly obeyed an unlawful order that resulted in harm.
Perhaps ethics have evolved.
I don’t claim this obligation was always honored, but it was discussed at some length.
petrushka:
And thank God (so to speak) for that, in case Trump gets back into office.
Mark Milley made the point forcefully in his farewell speech.
Can you cite an example of an unlawful order given ?
petrushka:
No. My concern is that he might do so if elected, which is why I’m glad that service members are instructed not to obey any such orders. Trump has consistently shown little regard for the law, and I’m sure he’d happily issue an illegal order if he could get away with it and thought it was to his benefit.
Remember, this is the same guy who seriously floated the idea of bombing Mexico:
Please note: I am not saying that such an order would have been illegal. I’m not familiar with the relevant law, so I simply don’t know. My point is that anyone stupid and reckless enough to float that idea, and in general as stupid and reckless and indifferent to the law as Trump is, cannot be trusted to refrain from issuing illegal orders to the military.
I’m going to have to think about that one. I agree that every species has evolved a set of behaviors that has facilitated the success of that species. Humans, being social and gregarious, need nearly-universally-accepted principles that permits this. Like, respect one another, understand the nature and limits of ownership, etc. I would imagine these attributes must have emerged at least 100,000 years before any formal religion, and it looks like religions have co-opted these principles to become “fairly similar in aspiration.” As Machiavelli wrote in The Prince, “where neither their property nor their honor is threatened, most men live content.”
The question is, are such highly abstract coordinating principles required or even involved? I think of the coordinated movements of schools of fish or flocks of birds. It LOOKS like there is some high-order coordination going on, but computer simulations show that such coordinated schooling or flocking even among vast numbers of individuals, can be modeled if each individual follows only two rules: do what the guy next to you does, and don’t collide with anything.
Along those lines, civil and criminal law actually only apply to edge cases, because most people would do what the law requires without the law telling them to. So Skandinavian societies have dispensed with religion almost entirely, but have become no less civil (and the US is one of the most religious of developed countries, but has serious problems with mass killings and violence generally). So I wonder if religion (or at least Christianity) might be taking credit for factors of which religion is the result, not the cause.
That’s the plot of a Tom Clancy novel. Tom was rather circumspect in depicting shenanigans.
I have a somewhat different set of life experiences from people under 65. I despise alll career politicians, pretty much equally.
petrushka:
Your point being?
OK, but how is that relevant to the question of whether Trump can be trusted not to issue illegal orders to the military?
My experience is they would not be obeyed.
But it takes some doing for a military order to be illegal. Basically it has to violate the Geneva Conventions. International lawyers are in a knot over whether invading a country to annex it is illegal, so the bar is high.
I presume you are thinking more along the lines of a stupid order.
The bar for that is also pretty high. And in my experience, the military obeys stupid orders.
Flint:
I do think that happens a lot. An extreme case is when believers argue that morality depends on God, so that if God doesn’t exist, neither does morality. God is thus the only reason we aren’t all running around raping and pillaging.
It’s pretty clear to me that morality comes from people, who then put it in the mouths of the gods they invent.
I pretty certain that the inclination toward moral behavior is evolved.
The strongest and most obvious example of working for the benefit of others, or of refraining from harming them, is parenthood. Unless there’s new evidence, this impulse is correlated with degree of kinship.
What civilization attempts is extending kinship. We can see people whose notion of kinship extends to all people and even to all animals.
This civilizing teaching is common to most religions. Perhaps there’s a bit of mutualism involved. Religion helps civilizations survive, and vice versa.
I see some political activists complaining that scientism has become a religion. In this scenario, science is seen as dogma rather than a methodology.
keiths:
petrushka:
That’s my hope, and it’s why I’m glad that the duty to disobey such orders is stressed to servicemembers.
Not just those cases. There are many domestic uses of the military that would also be illegal. Trump actually considered using the military to seize voting machines:
This thread is getting a bit convoluted…
Alan: yes, I think religion is poorly understood and even more poorly taught. I consider several of my atheist friends, ad some of other religions, far more “Christian” than I am! A Catholic archbishop of my acquaintance was fond of preaching to his Catholic congregation that in his experience there were “too many Catholics and not enough Christians.”
Keith: Yes and no. My beliefs are probably at odds with what many “mainstream Catholics” think they believe, but I think not at odds with “mainstream Catholicism.” Concepts such as “salvation” and “transsubstantiation” are both complex and technical (in the sense that they have specific theological definitions) and few Christians understand them. Similarly, the distinction between “supernatural” and “natural” is poorly understood, if at all. It seems to distinguish between events mediated by God and events which aren’t, which is not good Christian theology. Essentially though, Christianity is a “doing” not a “thinking” activity.
American elections are a shit show. They are not auditable. They are not even recountable. Some day there will be a repeat of Florida 2000, and the screeching will be on the other side.
As for Trump, being able to see problems doesn’t translate into being able to solve them.
Most governments are run like dysfunctional corporations. And most people can only focus on policy issues and have no interest in management. Politicians encourage this because it is easier to be a rabble rouser than a manager. News media love it because crises get clicks.
keiths:
Hugh:
I’m not using the word ‘supernatural’ in any sort of hairsplitting way.. I was just wondering about your beliefs regarding the things I listed. That is, does God exist, was Jesus God, was Mary a virgin when Jesus was conceived, etc. If you’d prefer not to answer, that’s fine. I only asked because those things are rather fundamental to Catholic doctrine, but they seem to be of lesser importance to you:
Most religions that have survived multiple generations will have members who are members because their family and friends are members. They will include people of all intellectual and educational levels. And people with varying levels of interest in theology.
Growing up, I heard people referred to as good Christians based on their behavior. But there have been times and places where goodness was defined as ability to recite doctrine.
petrushka:
True. And some people’s beliefs will barely overlap with the standard doctrine of the faiths with which they identify. I have a friend whom I think of as a “cultural Catholic” (a term she likes and has appropriated for herself). She was raised as a Catholic, calls herself a Catholic, believes in God and in the divinity of Jesus, but otherwise doesn’t accept much of Church doctrine.
Like Hugh and Vincent, she’s smart and skeptical. It isn’t surprising when such people don’t fully buy into the prescribed dogma, so I’m always curious about what they do believe. Hence my questions to Hugh.
Yeah, the ability to cite doctrine isn’t very interesting. I’m much more interested in what people actually believe.
Though I wouldn’t call Thomas Jefferson a paragon of virtue, his pruning of the New Testament of everything but the teachings of Jesus seems a similar approach.