History-shmistory!
The History channel, on occasion, has some good programs.
However, it also has a lot of bullshit and stuff that has nothing to do with history and much to do with entertainment.
I know, many other people have talked about this and the downward spiral of the channel for years. (One of these people is a co-worker of mine, who has a master's in history and with whom I like to discuss history nerdery.) This really shouldn't surprise me.
But we were watching TV last night, and an ad for "The Real Face of Jesus?" came on. Basically, they research the Shroud of Turin with modern technology and determine what the "holy" dude would have looked like. With a 2010 production/broadcast date.
Really? We're still talking about this? Hasn't this been disproven, like, many many many times?
In my opinion, to people who are interested in truth and science, this debate really shouldn't be a debate anymore. Plenty of people have done research into methods that may have produced an image like the shroud with non-supernatural means. The Skeptic's Dictionary has a good entry about it.
I know, to people who are believers, there are any amount of arguments "cancelling" the scientific skepticism surrounding the shroud. (The Skeptic's Dictionary entry discusses this as well.) In fact, many of the believers are scientists themselves. This fact boggles my mind. I even know people who, while they may doubt the shroud itself, believe in both the power of science and in christianity. I was one of these people for a few years--my late teen years, until I was told explicitly (though not in regards to myself) that homosexuality is wrong and a sin and the doubts I had in Christian faith were solidified.
Now, I know there might be several arguments to this. "Hey, there are some Christian churches who are super gay-friendly..." Though I currently identify as an atheist, I have the utmost respect for individuals who are able to believe in some sort of religion. Though I may disdain religion itself, if you are able to believe in something or have faith in a religion or spiritual path, good for you. I have way more respect for a church or religion (or believer) that doesn't say I'm evil and going to hell, and especially those who actively embrace a community with which I identify. I still have a problem believing in pretty much any religion or spiritual path. It just doesn't "take" with me. As long as you aren't trying to convince me of "Right" or "Wrong", you can have your own thing. I've tried or studied many different religions, and none of them "grabbed" me or even "moved" me significantly. The only church that I would willingly go to is a Unitarian Universalist church, mostly because of the open-minded nature of it and the sense of community. (And, to be honest, the fact that many people there are former christians who were disenchanted with the religion and it's members.)
To me, there is no convincing scientific evidence of the "Truth" of the supposed jesus-cloth or, for that matter, any "Truth" to the claims of Christianity itself. For me, the rigors of science preclude my faith in pretty much any religion. And I don't see there being any good reason for the History channel to be interested in the face of jesus other than yet more pandertainment.
End curmudgeosity.
However, it also has a lot of bullshit and stuff that has nothing to do with history and much to do with entertainment.
I know, many other people have talked about this and the downward spiral of the channel for years. (One of these people is a co-worker of mine, who has a master's in history and with whom I like to discuss history nerdery.) This really shouldn't surprise me.
But we were watching TV last night, and an ad for "The Real Face of Jesus?" came on. Basically, they research the Shroud of Turin with modern technology and determine what the "holy" dude would have looked like. With a 2010 production/broadcast date.
Really? We're still talking about this? Hasn't this been disproven, like, many many many times?
In my opinion, to people who are interested in truth and science, this debate really shouldn't be a debate anymore. Plenty of people have done research into methods that may have produced an image like the shroud with non-supernatural means. The Skeptic's Dictionary has a good entry about it.
I know, to people who are believers, there are any amount of arguments "cancelling" the scientific skepticism surrounding the shroud. (The Skeptic's Dictionary entry discusses this as well.) In fact, many of the believers are scientists themselves. This fact boggles my mind. I even know people who, while they may doubt the shroud itself, believe in both the power of science and in christianity. I was one of these people for a few years--my late teen years, until I was told explicitly (though not in regards to myself) that homosexuality is wrong and a sin and the doubts I had in Christian faith were solidified.
Now, I know there might be several arguments to this. "Hey, there are some Christian churches who are super gay-friendly..." Though I currently identify as an atheist, I have the utmost respect for individuals who are able to believe in some sort of religion. Though I may disdain religion itself, if you are able to believe in something or have faith in a religion or spiritual path, good for you. I have way more respect for a church or religion (or believer) that doesn't say I'm evil and going to hell, and especially those who actively embrace a community with which I identify. I still have a problem believing in pretty much any religion or spiritual path. It just doesn't "take" with me. As long as you aren't trying to convince me of "Right" or "Wrong", you can have your own thing. I've tried or studied many different religions, and none of them "grabbed" me or even "moved" me significantly. The only church that I would willingly go to is a Unitarian Universalist church, mostly because of the open-minded nature of it and the sense of community. (And, to be honest, the fact that many people there are former christians who were disenchanted with the religion and it's members.)
To me, there is no convincing scientific evidence of the "Truth" of the supposed jesus-cloth or, for that matter, any "Truth" to the claims of Christianity itself. For me, the rigors of science preclude my faith in pretty much any religion. And I don't see there being any good reason for the History channel to be interested in the face of jesus other than yet more pandertainment.
End curmudgeosity.