Thanks for the update Dan. I would think that understanding has come rather late to the game, especially for one who had talked for years about sequence comparisons and tree generation in phylogenetics. Or entropy. Or information.
Still, I continue to value his and Giltil’s continued willingness to speak what they think. It provides an interesting insight into how psychology strongly and unconsciously affects one’s certainty in the ‘rationality’ of one’s conclusions. And I learn how this may manifest in similar ways in other topics. The fact that self confidence can be so clearly off yet remain unnoticed by holders of such beliefs leads me to be more open to the notion that some ideas I hold may be bonkers too. I’m certain I hold at least a few irrational beliefs: everyone seems to. The best we can hope is that these don’t adversely affect one’s professional life and personal happiness.
Would you also say that you can think of few more effective ways of destroying one’s own credibility as a serious thinker than affirmation of belief in the resurrection?
Well, it certainly doesn’t recommend one as a serious thinker, though there are serious-minded people who for some reason or other have these little carve-out areas. But there is a huge difference between these claims. The shroud is a falsifiable claim which has been decisively falsified with compelling evidence. The resurrection is a one-off; nobody can demonstrate the non-occurrence of a miracle said to have occurred in the distant past. And so all it takes to affirm the resurrection is one ad-hoc acceptance of a poorly evidenced fact, not denial of compelling evidence to the contrary as in the case of the shroud.
The shadow shroud theory proposed by Wilson is an interesting idea but it is far from explaining all aspects of the Shroud. In fact, according to the table at p89 of the article below, it is consistant with 8 characteristics of the Shroud but inconsistent with 8 others. IOW, the Shroud still resists a naturalistic explanation.