@asomd2021 @akulkis00 @voxday We differ in determination of ‘credible’. I have n

@asomd2021@akulkis00@voxday

We differ in determination of ‘credible’. I have never seen a single report that as ‘credible’. And a ‘scientist’ like ‘doctor’ doesn’t convey any more meaning than a school teacher of physics does, a clerical scientsts, a scientist at a low end university, in relation to the top one to three people in a field. There are no credible claims that the shroud is not a forgery. It appears we know when and where it was created, and last time I took a look into the evidence we even have some idea who paid for the forgery and his motives.

Most people for a variety of reasons, most of them pragmatic, refer to what I do as law, or the science of decidability. But in practice what it consists of is the science of the means by which people lie, and their motives for lying.

But as in most things the manufacturer of a lie is successful if and only if there is a market for that lie, by people who want to believe that lie, and will invest in the preservation of that lie.

All religions, and abrahamic religions in particular, depend on this willingness to invest in the preservation of a lie that they wish to believe.