The bones of St. Paul have been found! That’s what the Pope says, anyway, so it must be true:
Scientific tests prove bones housed in the Basilica of St. Paul in Rome are those of the apostle St. Paul himself, according to Pope Benedict XVI.
That’s pretty big news, and it’s backed by scientific tests. So what were the tests?
“Tiny fragments of bone” in the sarcophagus were subjected to carbon dating, showing they “belong to someone who lived in the first or second century,” the pope said in a homily carried on Italian television.
“This seems to confirm the unanimous and undisputed tradition that these are the mortal remains of the Apostle St. Paul,” Benedict said in Sunday’s announcement.
So they tested some bones, and determined they belonged to someone who lived between 1 AD and 200 AD.
Therefore, it must be the Apostle St. Paul?
Sure, it could be. Or it could be anyone’s bones from that time period.
What is it about religion that causes people to stop using their brains?
Erp: Interesting. Many years ago I helped my aunt sort out some of her late mother-in-law’s... 
Peter Cross: The Age of Reason is sometimes published and sold without Part 3: Examination of the... 
Mark D: Let Ed sell his plane and give the money to the Red Cross 
nomad: You’d love it, Custador. It looks and tastes just like it sounds. Nomnom. 
Matt: I find it very interesting that there are so many people out there with such sad lives as to sit... 
Tyrrlin: Wow… I’d like to buy apostrophes for most of those commenters. Apparently belief in a... 
Mathurine: I’m not so sure that they wouldn’t have. The father in the case is... 
JonJon: I agree. 
64 Comments
Correlation is not causation.
Agreed. It’s hard to know whether religion makes people stupid, or whether stupid people are attracted to religion.
Personally, I think it’s a little of both, with a few exceptions.
Hmmm, in another thread, I called you out for making faith an issue of intelligence, i.e., stupid people are religious.
You vehemently denied that you ever did so, even sending me a personal e-mail in repsonse (which I greatly appreciated).
Now I’m confused, because you’ve obviously just done the same thing, twice. Both in your opening post and in this comment.
I can handle being called irrational, because that’s a criticism of a way of thinking and that criticism can open the door to intelligent dialogue; however, I can’t tolerate being called stupid, because that’s an attack on intelligence and precludes intelligent dialogue from the get-go.
So which is it? Am I irrational? Or am I just st00pid?
You’re one of the exceptions. :)
I was joking in the thread. In the post, I made a generalization — but I did not call religious people stupid. The Pope is not stupid. He is just not using his brain when it comes to matters of faith and apologetics.
Daniel,
I do believe you, but it’s hard to read statements like this:
Agreed. It’s hard to know whether religion makes people stupid, or whether stupid people are attracted to religion.
from my perspective and hear anything other than what I did and what I reacted to.
Thanks for the response.
Yeah, I was just being an insensitive jerk. Sorry.
However, I do still believe religion has a tendency to make people turn off their brains, and that people who are very suggestive are attracted to religion. But I did note there were exceptions. I of course think of Chesterton and Lewis, for example. Both brilliant, but when they started talking about faith, they seem to lose their brilliance and start spouting nonsense.
Thanks, Daniel. I appreciate the apology and your sincerity.
I think the confusing language for me is the ‘turning of your brain’ language, and it’s confusing, because you’re using it metaphorically (I think). What I hear you saying in this comment is that you’re objecting to a particular way of thinking that you perceive to be irrational, and you’re speaking about that metaphorically by saying they are ‘turning of their brains.’ That, in my view, is a very valuable criticism to us religious folk and what attracted me to the blog in the first place.
However, when I read that language in the opening post and the subsequent comments, it’s not always clear that you’re using the language metaphorically to refer to a particular way of thinking about the world. In other words, I read the statement literally. That is, “religious people don’t use their brains; therefore, it is about cognitive capacity, i.e., intelligence.”
That’s a long way of saying, I think we religious people use our brains as much as the next person; consequently, faith or no faith, it’s not an issue of cognitive capacity, i.e., intelligence. Your objection, therefore, is not really about our cognitive capacity (we are literally using our brains to think), but it’s rather about how we’re thinking life, the universe, meaning, etc. etc.
If the debate is framed that way, I’m happy to read and post. But, when the conversation digresses into “That group is just stupid,” it becomes impossible for people like me to 1) read/hear what others have to say and 2) contribute anything without being written of as ’stupid’ from the get-go.
Anyway, thanks for your sincere apology. It speaks well about you and the blog.
Can you at least concede that many, perhaps even most of the fundies, are rather stupid? At the very least, they say some very dumb things.
It is definitely incorrect literally — I mean, everyone uses their brains. You are right that I mean a type of thinking, not cognitive capacity.
So in this instance, the Pope is reasoning his way that since the tradition is that they have Paul’s bones, and that they tested it and it was from Paul’s general timeperiod, it must be Paul. He places a great trust in tradition and chooses to ignore the fraudulent relic peddling that has taken place all throughout history.
Really it’s just another example of confirmation bias — we see what we want to see, and ignore the rest. Everyone is guilty of it. But skeptics admit that and strive against it. It seems that most religious folk I talk with don’t know anything about confirmation bias, and when I explain it, they don’t think it applies to them.
Anyway, all that to say that I think we probably agree more than disagree.
Really it’s just another example of confirmation bias
Well-put, and I agree with you completely. I don’t see any reason to believe these bones are Paul’s. It’s a case study in confirmation bias.
Can you at least concede that many, perhaps even most of the fundies, are rather stupid? At the very least, they say some very dumb things.
Of course fundamentalist folks say dumb things, both on the left and the right. I’m not disputing that at all.
What bothers me is when the theism/atheism conversation digresses into, “Well, you’re just not thinking.” Or worse, “Those people over there who aren’t part of our ingroup are stupid.”
I enjoy conversing with people who aren’t religious, which is why I post here. But I can’t deal with it when that conversation is framed in terms of intelligence. I’m a relatively smart guy, not a genius, but smart enough. I’m also a believer. I enjoy talking about the reasons that I am a believer, and I’m fine with people criticzing my way of thinking (which is irrational to those here); but, I get tired of the conversation digressing into, “Well, you’re just not using your brain,” Or perhaps more accurately, “Well, I just don’t see how an intelligent, rational person could think such a thing.” When it’s framed in terms of cognitive capacity and intelligence, I have to bow out of the conversation, because there’s literally nowhere else for it to go.
As to your former claim, I can’t concede that many-most fundies are stupid. I grew up as a fundamentalist. I know a lot of fundamentalists personally. I may not agree with them, but they are very far from stupid; in fact, a good number of them that I know personally are a LOT smarter than I am.
Are there ’stupid’ fundamentalists? I’m sure there are. Are there ’stupid’ atheists? I’m sure there are. Are there stupid moderate Christians? I’m sure there are. What I don’t buy is that stupidity and religion/atheism are caustically related to each other.
I do think Daniel’s comment about suggestibility might have some merit… It would make an interesting study.
@brgulker
““Well, I just don’t see how an intelligent, rational person could think such a thing.””
While I was just as intelligent as a believer, I would argue quite vigorously that I was not rational.
In fact, I would argue that supernaturalism in any form is an irrational belief system.
But, again, I agree that it has nothing to do with intelligence. I got one of the highest SAT scores in my high school the year I took it, when I was also quite active in my fundamentalist church and would have argued in favor of creationism with anyone who asked.
Ty,
Criticizing someone for thinking irrationally is a different thing than saying they aren’t thinking. It’s the latter that that gets under my skin.
I was mostly agreeing with you I think. Did I come across as disagreeing? Both of my parents are quite intelligent. My mother has an amazingly keen mind for argument. She just happens to use that keen intellect to argue in favor of literal scripture interpretation.
I was just pointing out that the one piece of the statement I quoted that I do agree with is the claim of rational/irrational. While I think my mother is as smart as anyone I’ve ever known, I would never call her core beliefs ‘rational.’
You are not even close and it gets under your skin, true real life christian?
Ty, no, I wasn’t disagreeing. I wasn’t clear, my bad. I was just reiterating my previous point. Just pretend that comment isn’t there. It appears we are saying the same thing.
It would bug me if I thought someone was calling me stupid without knowing me. I grok.
Maybe it’s just scientific reasoning that is missing in (some/most) christians. I have to admit that most of the christians on Daniel’s threads seem thoughtful and intelligent, even though it is my personal belief that when it comes to religion, they are not thinking straight.
You gotta admit that this “reasoning” (and I use that word very loosely here) is amazingly vacuous. (”someone from the first century”??? And that means it is…Apostle Paul…which means the bible is literally true, I suppose…). Even christians here will not defend this argument, right?
Even christians here will not defend this argument, right
For one, I didn’t.
It would be convincing if and only if the church’s tradition about Paul (in this case, specifically his death, burial, and resting place) had more grounding in extra-biblical documents. I posted a link earlier that summed up the post-NT historical attestations to Paul, his death, and his burial. I don’t think they’re very convincing. There are a few church fathers here who hint at some early speculation, but nothing definitive.
So, no, I don’t think this test lends any support to the tradition, and it’s certainly nothing definitive. We know we have some bones from the first to second century. Big deal.
But, if, for example, we had a tomb with an inscription from the first or second century that claimed these were Paul’s remains, and we had some historical attestation, and then we had this test (and some of the tests Aor mentioned), then I think it would be reasonable to think these are likely Paul’s remains.
Even if they were Paul’s remains, it would make little theological/spiritual difference to anyone outside the RCC, anyway, because we Protestants wouldn’t venerate them regardless. It might make for some interesting academic work or something, but little more than that.
From XKCD
That’s a hilarious comic!
He has stolen Christmas!
So, when carbon dating proves the antiquity they want, it is a great scientific method. When it doesn’t (the holy shroud of Turin) it’s not really a proof.
Anyway, even if those where Paul’s bones.. so what?
You beat me to it. I was going to say don’t creationist say carbon dating is a lie. Yeah I know some earlier pope said evolution is the real deal but I don’t see this pope as agreeing with him.
The current pope has tried hard to ride the fence on evolution. He probably personally accepts it, at least on an intellectual level, but he occasionally has to make a statement about “intelligent projects” in order to appease the tortilla worshippers.
If I had a God-given gift of infallibility, I would try to be a little less ambiguous in my statements.
I don’t think “scientific tests” means what the pope thinks it means.
How do they know it’s really St Paul? I could be anyone. Is there a skull in it or not? Wasn’t he supposed to be beheaded and the skull is in some other church?
I don’t actually understand why they considered it the sarcophagus of St. Paul in the first place, when they weren’t even sure there were any bones in it…
LosRaupos: There is an inscription on the tomb (which is from the 4th century)
As much as I hate copyright laws, I really think a bunch of scientists should get together and copyright the word “scientific” so that they can sue the hell out of people like the Pope when they abuse it.
Well, if they used carbon dating, then they used a reliable scientific test. So that’s not the issue. The issue is how the results of the tests were interpreted and applied, right?
Having bones that are from the 1-2 CE range are just that; there’s nothing definitive about whose old bones they are.
Dare I suggest they could possibly be the bones of a certain special friend from Galilee? One with supposed ‘magical’ powers?
The guys come up to the tomb, and think to themselves, “Oh Jesus!”
“I know… I know…”
“Quick, let’s write Paul’s name on here. Nobody has to know!”
“Good thinking. Get a chisel.”
There was a saint bones trade throughout Catholic history. Most of it fake, I’m sure. But all someone had to do was dig up a grave from around that time and say they were Paul’s, and this is exactly what we’d expect.
Now, if they really were Paul’s bones, we’d also expect the date to come out correctly. But with the church’s crazy history with relics, I’d have to say it’s pretty unlikely.
to be fair, of course, the church hasn’t claimed to have conclusively proven that these are the bones of paul. CNN has, but the Pope says “This *seems to confirm* the unanimous and undisputed tradition that these are the mortal remains of the Apostle St. Paul” — emphasis mine.
So, while an assertion that this has all been scientifically ‘proven’ would absolutely be bogus, no such assertion has been made. Stating that experiments do not conflict with a current theory is no problem. As long as no attempt is made to make that analysis ‘prove’ an assertion, I see no problem saying “hey, we had this theory, which might have been proven wrong right here. it wasn’t, so that’s something!”
So it’s now ok to suggest that a tradition is true but that doesn’t mean that they are stating it as true — care to enlighten my is to what exactly the difference is between the two statements?
With all fairness to the Church they’ve pulled one out of where the sun doesn’t shine …
Darth ratzinger has used his mastery of the force to connect with the spirits of ancient sith lords who confirmed that these were the bones of st. Paul.
Glad to hear the Pope is on board with science – when it suits him.
Hopefully they can gather enough material from the skeleton to do DNA testing; perhaps they could check if Paul was epileptic, which some have suggested is the basis fro his visions.
Maybe next the Holy Roman Catholic Church can gather up the several tons of pieces of the one true cross in churches throughout the land, and have them dated, or at least to see if they are all from the same tree.
The DNA test would not be valid. Saul of Tarsus epilepsy dates to the time of his accident when he was thrown from a horse, suffering blindness and hearing voices (or a voice). The blindness subsided after several days. The voice continued.
That explains why he is the patron saint of brain damage.
I have proof that St. Paul was the only person who died between 1 AD and 200 AD.
I’ll bet you Atheists feel really dumb now
But we all know carbon dating is bogus! ;-)
Seriously — who else’s bones does the Catholic church have locked up from that era? NONE. Therefore, he was the only one that died back then, QED.
Maybe not the only one who died, but the others all came back to life. Don’t you remember guys? I can name two, just off the top of my head – Lazarus and Jesus. So maybe EVERYBODY except Paul is still alive! You ever think of that, stupid atheists who want to question the pope’s science?
Doesn’t anybody pay attention anymore?
He said it was a unanimous and undisputed tradition that seems to have been confirmed once more.
What part of unanimous and undisputed do people not understand? It means shut.up.now.
What part of “tradition” do you not understand? Or “seems to have been confirmed”? As opposed to “truth” and “proven fact”. I traditionally like to go to the picnic area near the Butte de Lion at Waterloo, to read my paper and drink a beer. And I’d even offer a Jupiler to St Paul.
(Don’t flame me – I’m joking, right? Except about drinking a beer at the picnic area at Waterloo.)
So join me there. On the N5 heading north towards Waterloo. If you don’t understand this, I’ll not expect to see you.
It’s amusing how affronted theists will become when their claims are subjected to the kind of challenge that is expected in other areas of life:
“Would this evidence stand up in a court of law?”
“Is this proof beyond reasonable doubt?”
They want it both ways: to use science to support their claims when it suits them, and to assert the inappropriateness of science when it doesn’t.
Isn’t it ironic that Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament, spent the early part of his career killing Christians?
Can you imagine any modern church allowing someone who was a mass murderer of Christians to take a leadership position in the faith?
Paul was the first traveling evangelical con man. He claimed Jesus personally appeared to him. (At least Jesus wasn’t 900 feet tall) He also had the convenient dream that change god’s kosher laws, making easier to gentiles to join his faith. He radically changed Christian dogma, putting word into Jesus’ mouth.
Actually according to Acts Peter had the dream not Paul.
Personally I’m wondering about the purple cloth they supposedly pulled out. Purple was restricted to Senators and Emperors and was expensive. I very much doubt Paul was originally buried in purple. However it is likely these bones have been disinterred and rewrapped (did they do carbon dating on the purple cloth?). Possibly the cloth might have been pushed through even later by some pilgrim.
Also it is my understanding that carbon dating results are usually given as a year +- a margin of error (e.g., 110CE +_40 years). I very much doubt the result was announced as 100AD +- 100 years so what was it.
Two different ‘dreams;’ two different men.
Jesus appears to Saul while on the way to Damascus in Acts.
Peter has a vision, the result of which lets Christians eat unclear meat.
Peter has a vision, the result of which lets Christians eat unclear meat.
Except that any idiot can read the passage in Acts and see that the vision was a justification for allowing Gentiles to become Christians, not a call for Jewish Christians to throw out their dietary laws. The use of unclean foods was a metaphor for allowing Gentiles into the community – it’s embedded right in the middle of the story of the Roman Centurion Cornelius calling on Peter to become a Christian and Peter even says flat out that he’s been shown a vision that God wants him to allow “unclean” people (Gentiles) to become part of the Christian community. The fact that this gets read as a license for throwing out Jewish dietary laws rather than as a call to accept anyone into the Christian community no matter how “unclean” they seem to be makes me laugh at anyone who insists that they read the Bible “literally” and still persecutes gay people. It’s right there in Acts – the writer of Acts clearly says “cut this shit out – anyone can be a Christian”.
It’s all a matter of context: when the context opposes your viewpoint, ignore the context, whereas if there is no context supporting your viewpoint contradicted by a clear statement, claim that there’s some unspecified context.
Sorry guys. If you open a tomb and the inscription says it is from ToutAnkhAmon, and you find bones dating from the right period and inscription on artifact saying that Tout is buried here, then you conclude that you have found teh bones from ToutAnkhAmon. Of course it can be someone else, and it is possible that the Ilias is not written by Homeros but by his brother, but the rantings here are not very enlightened. What they have found seems as close to a scientific proof as you can get.
You need to read the whole article. The attribution and inscription came later.
I think your analogy would carry more weight if two things were not the case:
1) As Alexis mentioned, if the inscription had not come so much later. Had the inscription been added in the first (or even second) century, it would be more believable.
2) It’s fairly obvious (to me, anyway) that the RCC stands to gain quite a bit by claiming these are really Paul’s remains. They have a vested interest. I’m not sure I can think of anyone who stands to gain as much by testing the remains of ToutAnkhAmon.
To be fair, I do think I agree with H.C. in that I think this is as close to scientific proof as can be gotten. It’s just that the proof isn’t terribly convincing.
There may be other tests that could help lock down some more information. There are ways of determining where a person grew up and what foods they ate when their bones were forming. Those methods are used in forensics occasionally, perhaps they can be applied to 2000 year old bones.
So, rest assured, this is NOT as close to a scientific proof as you can get. The experts can do much more. We just have to wait and see if the catholic church decides those tests are worth doing. The test could be quite cheap, but the cost of getting the ‘wrong’ answer are large in the eyes of the catholic church.
You have a point. Those tools have been used in researching the Archer (Stonehenge), and they determined he was originally from Swiss. So, a more elaborated research should also correlate those data with the historical figure and his travels.
What it means : maybe the church can spin it, but as the existence of Paulus has never been disputed, not much will change. Archeologically I think it is an interesting find. As interesting as finding that the shroud of Turin dates from the 11th century eg.
I had no idea we had that capacity, Aor! That’s fascinating stuff. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
It should be quite easy to verify whether the remains were beheaded. Which is nowhere conclusive proof of authenticity, but it would be crucial if the RCC insists on that part of the history of Paul being true (I don’t know if this is the case).
trj, I don’t think that the tradition of Paul being beheaded is a non-negotiable. My understanding is that it’s part of the tradition, but that tradition isn’t something they’d be willing to live or die about.
I think this article gives an accurate summation of the documents and early church leaders’ opinions on the issue: http://www.biblestudy.org/question/sauldie.html
What I found really funny is this expression in Ratzinger words: “unanimous and undisputed tradition”
There is a curious bible verse that equates “Apostle Paul” with Apollos, whom Martin Luther identified as Apollonius. (1 Corinthians 3:4-8) There was a sage in the first century named Apollonius of Tyana whose life and travels are similar to the journeys of Paul in the Book of Acts. He did not die in Rome, nor was he beheaded.
Helen Blavatsky had identified the Rabbi Saul as Elisha ben Abujah. (Isis Unveiled, II, p. 536)
These clues (plus other events in my life with an adept who identified Paul as Apollonius) caused me to write a historical fiction based on those clues that I uncovered.
The book is available at:
God in Three Persons: A Spiritual Odyssey
My conclusion: The story of Saul/Paul is a syncretic story similar to Roman creations of “gods” (i.e. Serapis).
And what exactly is an “adept”? Is that anything like a, ahem, “psychic”?
I think you’re in the wrong place to peddle your woo Paul.
Yeah. Wow.
Talk about throwing up a brick shot.
This article reminds me of this picture for some reason: http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/679/identifyingwoodstupidbois1.jpg
I went to the Royal Ontario Museum earlier this year to attend an textiles exhibit containing one of Marie Antoinette’s dresses.
After paying $44 to get in for my fiancée and I, the description on the exhibit read as follows: “believed to be one of Marie Antoinette’s dresses believed to be made from her dressmaker.”
And that was only late 18th century.
The proof of St. Paul’s bones have the same “wishing it were so” mentality and motive; validation of their beliefs, and making money.
One Trackback
[...] by J.D. Ryan at 10:10 am under religion 0Digg itBy way of Unreasonable Faith, they’ve apparently found the bones of St. Paul, the founder of Catholicism. The reasoning [...]