When discussing the Shroud of Turin — believed by millions to be the burial cloth of Jesus — many scientists respond, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” They demand repeatable, empirical proof before accepting the Resurrection as a historical event.
Yet, when the topic shifts to the origin of the universe, those same scientists embrace the Big Bang theory, despite the fact that its most important moment — the beginning — is also an unobservable, unrepeatable singularity shrouded in mystery.
It’s a fascinating double standard that reveals not just the divide between faith and science, but the underlying biases at work.
1. How Science Treats the Big Bang
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model describing the early development of the universe. It rests on three major observations:
Redshift of galaxies — indicating the universe is expanding.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation — a faint afterglow from an early hot phase.
Elemental abundances — matching predictions for a young, dense universe.
From these observations, cosmologists reverse-engineer the expansion and conclude that, 13.8 billion years ago, everything was compressed into an incredibly hot, dense point.
The Problem: Physics cannot explain what caused the Big Bang or where the initial matter/energy came from. The laws of nature as we know them break down at the “Planck time” (about 10⁻⁴³ seconds after the start).
In other words — science has no observable, testable evidence for the universe’s ultimate origin. Yet, the model is accepted because it fits available data after the starting point.
2. How Science Treats the Shroud of Turin
The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth bearing the faint image of a crucified man. Many believe it to be Jesus’s burial shroud. Scientific studies have revealed extraordinary properties:
The image is superficial, affecting only the top fibrils of the fibers.
No paint or pigment penetrates the cloth.
The image contains three-dimensional information.
Attempts to reproduce it using medieval techniques have failed.
Even high-intensity UV lasers can’t perfectly replicate the microscopic detail without burning deeper layers.
Some researchers, including members of the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), suggest it was formed by a brief, intense burst of energy — a phenomenon consistent with what Christians believe happened during the Resurrection.
The Problem: The cause is unknown and can’t be repeated in a lab. Since the event points toward a supernatural explanation, many scientists reject it outright — despite it also being a singular, unobservable historical event.
3. The Side-by-Side Comparison
| Criteria | Big Bang | Resurrection/Shroud |
|---|---|---|
| Event Type | Singular, unrepeatable | Singular, unrepeatable |
| Direct Observability | None — inferred from later evidence | None — inferred from later evidence |
| Cause Known? | No | No (supernatural proposed) |
| Fits Current Physics? | Breaks down at t=0 | Breaks known limits of energy/material interaction |
| Scientific Acceptance | Widely accepted despite gaps | Widely rejected because cause implies God |
| Faith Component | Belief that an uncaused cause initiated the universe | Belief that God raised Jesus from the dead |
4. The Core Double Standard
When the cause of the Big Bang is unknown, science tolerates the mystery because it doesn’t require a supernatural agent.
When the cause of the Shroud image is unknown, science resists because the most plausible explanation involves God.
This isn’t about “proving God” through science — it’s about applying consistent reasoning. If the Big Bang can be accepted without a known cause because the effects fit the theory, then the Shroud deserves the same courtesy: examine its effects without dismissing possible causes just because they’re supernatural.
5. Voices Who Call It Out
John Lennox (Oxford mathematician): “The universe didn’t create itself. You can’t get something from nothing.”
Paul Davies (agnostic physicist): “We have no idea what breathed fire into the equations and gave them a universe to describe.”
William Lane Craig (philosopher): Uses the Kalam Cosmological Argument to highlight that everything that begins to exist has a cause — including the universe.
6. Why It Matters
If we allow one uncaused, unobservable, unrepeatable event in our worldview, we must allow that possibility for others — even if they suggest the divine.
Dismissing the Shroud’s mystery because it could validate the Resurrection is not a scientific stance; it’s a philosophical one.
FAQ
Q1: Has the Shroud of Turin been proven authentic?
No. While many researchers argue for its authenticity, others cite the 1988 carbon dating (placing it in the Middle Ages). However, that dating is contested due to possible contamination and sampling issues.
Q2: Can science explain the image on the Shroud?
Not fully. No known process — medieval or modern — can recreate all of the Shroud’s image properties without damaging the cloth.
Q3: Does the Big Bang prove or disprove God?
Neither. The Big Bang describes the universe’s expansion, not its ultimate cause. Many see it as compatible with belief in God, while others view it as a purely natural event.
Q4: Why compare the Big Bang to the Resurrection?
Both are singular, unrepeatable events known only through indirect evidence. The difference is how readily each is accepted in mainstream science.
Q5: Could the Shroud’s image be a medieval forgery?
Skeptics suggest it could be an advanced artistic technique, but no convincing replication exists that matches all its properties.
Preeth Jethwani 5 の
Interesting perspective! It’s thought-provoking how the Big Bang—an unrepeatable, one-time event—is widely accepted as the origin of the universe, while something like the Resurrection or the mystery of the Shroud of Turin is often dismissed as unscientific simply because it can’t be replicated or tested under lab conditions. Both deal with unique, historical events outside repeatable observation, so perhaps the real issue is less about science vs. faith and more about which assumptions we’re willing to accept as credible.