Charlene8;9613503 For the person who is posting because he is interested in (presumable) studying religious beliefs:
I have read your posts, and I would say that you have beliefs, too - you just call them something else and therefore they seem more acceptable to you
.
That would be me I think.
I try to maintain a distinction between a ‘belief’ which may exist in the absence of evidence, because of evidence, or in spite of evidence; and a conclusion, which may only be drawn from evidence. I think it is likely that humans evolved a capacity for belief as a way of dealing with our long childhood and its attendant dangers. We had to ‘believe’ or elders. This does not always lead to truth. Instead of believing, I try to ‘conclude’ things from evidence. So there is a difference between my ‘belief’ in the historical reality of Jesus, and your ‘belief’ that Mary was conceived in a state of grace. I would be open to change my ‘belief’ that Jesus was a real person in response to good evidence to the contrary. You, I guess, would not be willing to say that about a fundamental tenet of your faith.
The scientific method includes having an open mind - do you have an open mind about the possible causes of the stigmata of St. Padre Pio? Or have you already made up your mind? Have you done any investigation yourself?
Yes, no and yes if you mean reading.
Does the testimony of 6 doctors qualify for the equivalent of peer review?
No.
And does a peer review make an article correct?
No, but it makes the evidence available for debate on the basis of facts.
Have you looked at the list of doctors who examined him?
Yes.
Unless you are saying that doctors of the late 19th/early 20th century (because of the time period in which they were born) are ignorant and naive and therefore likely to just not understand medical causes of things, these are some pretty heavy hitters for the times. Why are you dismissing their testimony on the subject?
I am not dismissing it. But their ‘examinations’ do not seem to me to reach an appropriate standard for 1) detail in reporting 2) tests applied 3) closeness and length of examination 4) neutrality of observers 5) repetition of tests over the duration of the claimed phenomenon.
It seems to me that your belief is in a system that would never allow for something like Padre Pio stigmata - and therefore it could not have occurred.
In fact, I think it is likely that there are cases of stigmata. There are fairly widespread reports. But they are not confined to Christians. Some Muslims, for example, are said to exhibit the battle wounds of the Prophet. On that basis alone, I would think it likely that there is no need to seek a ‘spiritual’ explanation.
If it can not occur, that means that any proof that it has must be disregarded.
I do not have this view of anything, except that where in some cases in which I have reached a conclusion (e.g. there is gravity) I would need extraordinary proof of a claimed phenomena to the contrary (e.g. levitation as a result of meditation) before I changed my conclusion about gravity.
That proof, by definition, does not reach your exacting standards - although I wonder if you have the same exacting standards for other scientific matters that you DO believe in?
Yes indeed. And I change my conclusions about things every day. Well, every day I learn and think, anyway.
