Let me begin with a confession: I honestly don’t know what to make of the “miracle of the sun” that occurred in Fatima, Portugal, on October 13, 1917, and that was witnessed by a crowd of 70,000 people (although a few people in the crowd saw nothing) and also by people who were more than 10 kilometers away from Fatima at the time, as well as by sailors on a British ship off the coast of Portugal. On the other hand, no astronomical observatory recorded anything unusual at the time.
Rather than endorsing a particular point of view, I have decided to lay the facts before my readers, and let them draw their own conclusions.
Here are some good links, to get you started.
Neutral accounts of the visions and the “solar miracle” at Fatima:
Our Lady of Fatima (Wikipedia article: describes the visions leading up to the solar miracle). Generally balanced.
Miracle of the Sun (Wikipedia article). Discusses critical explanations of the miracle, and points out that people both in Fatima and the nearby town of Alburitel were expecting some kind of solar phenomenon to occur on October 13, 1917: some had even brought along special viewing glasses. Also, the solar miracle on October 13 was preceded by some bizarre celestial phenomena witnessed by bystanders at the preceding vision on September 13, including “a dimming of the sun to the point where the stars could be seen, and a rain resembling iridescent petals or snowflakes that disappeared before touching the ground.” In short: the “solar miracle” of October 13, 1917 didn’t come entirely as a bolt from the blue.
The Fatima Prophecies by Stephen Wagner, Paranormal Phenomena Expert. Updated April 10, 2016.
Catholic, pro-miracle accounts:
Meet the Witnesses of the Miracle of the Sun by John Haffert. Spring Grove, Pennsylvania: The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, 1961. John M. Haffert is a co-founder of the Blue Army of Fatima. He interviewed dozens of witnesses of the solar miracle at Fatima, and carefully records their testimonies in his book.
The True Story of Fatima by Fr. John de Marchi. St. Paul, Minnesota: Catechetical Guild Educational Society, 1956. Fr. de Marchi is an acknowledged expert on Fatima, whose account is based on the testimony of the seers, members of their families, and other acquaintances.
The Sixth Apparition of Our Lady. A short article containing eyewitness recollections, from the EWTN Website Celebrating 100 years of Fatima. (Very well-produced and easy to navigate.)
The Apparitions at Fatima. A short account of the visions and the solar miracle.
Catholic attempts to rebut skeptical debunkings of the solar miracle at Fatima:
Debunking the Sun Miracle Skeptics by Mark Mallett, a Canadian Catholic evangelist and former TV reporter. The author’s tone is irenic, and he evaluates the evidence fairly. His blog is well worth having a look at.
Ten Greatest (And Hilarious) Scientific Explanations for Miracle at Fatima by Matthew Archbold. National Catholic Register. Blog article. March 27, 2011. Rather polemical and sarcastic in tone.
Why the solar miracle couldn’t have been a hallucination:
Richard Dawkins And The Miracle Of Sun by Donal Anthony Foley. The Wanderer, Saturday, November 5, 2016. Makes the telling point that it was seen by sailors on a passing ship, who knew nothing about the visions.
A Catholic account by a scientist-priest who thinks that the “miracle” was a natural meteorological phenomenon, but that the coincidence between the timing of this natural event and the vision can only have a supernatural explanation:
Miracle of the Sun and an Air Lens (Theory of Father Jaki) by Dr. Taylor Marshall. Blog article. “Fr Jaki suggests that an ‘air lens’ of ice crystals formed above the Cova in Portugual. This lens would explain how the sun ‘danced’ at Fatima, but not over the whole earth. Thus, it was a local phenomenon that was seen at the Cova, and by others who were not present with the three children of Fatima within a 40 mile radius.” An air lens would also explain how the muddy and wet ground at the site of the apparitions suddenly dried up, after the miracle.
God and the Sun at Fatima by Fr. Stanley Jaki. Real View Books, 1999. Reviewed by Martin Kottmeyer. See also the attached footnote by Joaquim Fernandes, Center for Transdisciplinary Study on Consciousness, University Fernando Pessoa, Porto, Portugal, who argues that on the contrary, it was a UFO.
A Catholic, “anti-miracle” account by a scientist who thinks it was an optical illusion:
Apparitions and Miracles of the Sun by Professor Auguste Meessen, Institute of Physics, Catholic Univeristy of Louvain, Belgium. Paper given at the International Forum in Porto, “Science, Religion and Conscience,” October 23-25, 2003. Excerpt:
“So-called “miracles of the sun” were observed, for instance, in Tilly-sur-Seuilles (France, 1901), Fatima (Portugal, 1917), Onkerzeele (Belgium, 1933), Bonate (Italy, 1944), Espis (France, 1946), Acquaviva Platani (Italy, 1950), Heroldsbach (Germany, 1949), Fehrbach (Germany, 1950), Kerezinen (France, 1953), San Damiano (Italy, 1965), Tre Fontane (Italy, 1982) and Kibeho (Rwanda, 1983). They have been described by many witnesses and from their reports we can extract the following characteristic features, appearing successively.
“· A grey disc seems to be placed between the sun and the observer, but a brilliant rim of the solar disc is still apparent…
· Beautiful colours appear after a few minutes on the whole surface of the solar disc, at its rim and in the surrounding sky. These colours are different, however, and they change in the course of time…
· The sun begins to ‘dance’. First, the solar disk rotates about its centre at a uniform and rather high velocity (about 1 turn/s). Then the rotation stops and starts again, but now it is opposite to the initial one. Suddenly, the solar disk seems to detach itself from the sky. It comes rapidly closer, with increasing size and brilliancy. This causes great panic, since people think that the end of the world has come, but the sun retreats. It moves backwards until it has again its initial appearance…
· Finally, after 10 or 15 minutes, the sun is ‘normal’ again: its luminosity is too strong to continue gazing at it. But after about another quarter of an hour, the prodigy can be repeated in the same way…
“…It is shown that the hypothesis of an extraterrestrial intervention is not sufficient to explain all observed facts, while this is possible in terms of natural, but very peculiar physiological processes. The proof results from personal experiments and reasoning, based on relevant scientific literature.
“…Dr. J.B. Walz, a university professor of theology, collected over 70 eye-witness reports of the ‘miracle of the sun’ that occurred in Heroldsbach [an ecclesiastically condemned apparition – VJT] on December 8, 1949. These documents disclose some individual differences in perception, including the fact that one person saw the sun approaching and receding three times, while most witnesses saw this only two times! The ‘coloured spheres’ that were usually perceived after the breathtaking ‘dance of the sun’ are simply after-images, but they were not recognized as such, since the context of these observations suggested a prodigious interpretation.
“…The general conclusion is that apparitions and miracles of the sun cannot be taken at face value. There are natural mechanisms that can explain them, but they are so unusual that we were not aware of them. Miracles of the sun result from neurophysiological processes in our eyes and visual cortex, while apparitions involve more complex processes in our mind’s brain. The seers are honest, but unconsciously, they put themselves in an altered state of consciousness. This is possible, since our brain allows for ‘dissociation’ and for ‘switching’ from one type of behaviour to another.”
Meessen’s own explanation of the miracle as an optical illusion is based on experiments which he performed on himself, while looking at the sun under carefully controlled conditions (so as not to damage his eyes). However, I should point out that Meessen’s exposure to the sun’s optical effects was fairly short in duration (30 seconds), whereas the solar miracle at Fatima lasted far longer (over 10 minutes) and didn’t damage any of the spectators’ eyes.
Catholic blogger Mark Mallett also points out: “Professor Meesen’s logic further falls apart by stating that the dancing effects of the sun were merely the result of retinal after-images. If that were the case, then the miracle of the sun witnessed at Fatima should be easily duplicated in your own backyard.”
However, Meessen does a good job of debunking the “UFO hypothesis”: he points out that had it been a UFO covering the sun, it could not have been seen 40 kilometers away. Also, at least some witnesses would have reported seeing a “partial eclipse,” but none ever did.
A paranormal explanation of the solar miracle at Fatima:
The First Alien Contact And UFO Sighting Of The 20th Century by Tob Williams. Blog article. April 10, 2011. Updated June 18, 2016.
The Fatima UFO hypothesis by Lon Strickler. February 11, 2012.
https://www.paranormalnews.com/article.aspx?id=1562
“Live Science” debunking of the solar miracle:
The Lady of Fátima & the Miracle of the Sun by Benjamin Radford. May 2, 2013. Ascribes the miracle to “an optical illusion caused by thousands of people looking up at the sky, hoping, expecting, and even praying for some sign from God,” which, “if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.” Also suggests that mass hysteria and pareidolia can explain some features of the visions.
Skeptic Benjamin Radford on the Fátima Miracle by Dr. Stacy Trasancos. A response to Radford’s debunking. Points out that plenty of dispassionate observers at Fatima also reported seeing the sun move. Promotes Fr. Stanley L. Jaki’s carefully researched book on Fatima. Acknowledges that there may be a scientific explanation for what happened with the sun that day, but argues that this doesn’t explain the timing of the event, and why it coincided with the visions.
Virulently anti-Fatima accounts:
Solar Miracle of Fatima and
Fraud at Fatima. The author places too much reliance on discredited sources, such as Celestial Secrets: The Hidden History of the Fatima Incident by Portuguese UFOlogist Joachim Fernandes (critically reviewed here by Edmund Grant). The author also tries to argue, unconvincingly, that only half the people at Fatima actually witnessed the miracle, whereas in fact there were only a few people who saw nothing. See Jaki, Stanley L. (1999). God and the Sun at Fátima, Real View Books, pp. 170–171, 232, 272. The author is right in pointing out, however, that Lucia’s own published account of her visions at Fatima is highly retrospective (being written over 20 years after the event) and contains a lot of added material. Also, the seers didn’t all see the same thing: Lucia, for instance, saw Our Lady’s lips move while she was speaking, while Francisco (who saw Our Lady but never heard her speak), didn’t see Our Lady’s lips moving – a point acknowledged by Fr. de Marchi (see above). Finally, some of the prophecies associated with Fatima turned out to be false.
My own take:
Given the evidence that the solar miracle was witnessed by passing sailors and also seen at several different locations within a 40-kilometer radius of Fatima, I cannot simply dismiss it as a hallucination. Professor Meessen’s arguments (discussed above) appear to rule out the possibility that it was a UFO. The theory that it was an optical illusion founders on the fact that nobody reported any damage to their eyes, subsequent to the miracle. The hypothesis that it was a natural, local meteorological phenomenon sounds promising, but the fortuitous timing of the “miracle” (which coincided with the seers’ visions) would still point to supernatural intervention of some sort. Finally, if it was really a miracle, then one has to ask: what, exactly, was the miracle? After all, no law of Nature was broken: no-one seriously suggests that the Sun actually hurtled towards the Earth, as witnesses reported. The notion of God messing with people’s senses sounds pretty strange, too: why would He do that? On the other hand, the testimony of 70,000 witnesses is very impressive, and the event clearly meant something … but what? Beats me.
Over to you.
Right. It’s the difference between
“If you believe in truth, then since I believe that God is truth, then you would believe in God if you shared my belief that God is truth.”
and
“If you believe in truth, then you really do believe in God (since God is truth), and you wrongly believe of yourself that you do not believe in God.”
FMM has every right to assert (1), although I believe that “God is truth” is utter nonsense.
But he doesn’t assert (1); he asserts (2).
And that’s pretty close to a flat-out accusation of insincerity (which is against The Rules) and amounts to an accusation of self-deception (which is not against The Rules), except when self-deception and insincerity are conflated.
There’s also a pretty important difference between “believing in truth” and “believing that some statements are true”.
What FMM would seem to need, and has shown no interest in providing, is an argument that has as its conclusion “Only if one believes in God can one believe that any statements are true” — or more explicitly rendered, “Only if one believes in God can one be rationally entitled to believe that any statements correspond to the world”
I can see no way of doing that without presupposing what Jay Rosenberg (in One World and Our Knowledge Of It) calls “the Myth of the Mind Apart. My limited knowledge of Cornelius Van Til is that he does assume that picture of mindedness, which is why he’s able to generate the presuppositionalist conclusion at all.
phoodoo,
I never denied the ubiquity of religious symbolism in human cultures. My point about animism was precisely an insistence on that point. In fact the ubiquity of religious symbolism in human cultures is a fact about human cognition (esp. human social cognition) that most theorists of human cognitive evolution have not taken into sufficiently serious consideration.
Any adequate theory of human cognition will have to explain the fact that religious symbolism is ubiquitous across all cultures, whereas scientific practices are exceedingly rare.
But remember: we got into this argument when we were talking about Newton’s argument for a transcendent, providential deity in opposition to the “blind chance” position of 17th- and 18th-century materialists. You took what Newton was saying to be an expression of what everyone has always believed for all of human history.
From what I can see, your approach amounts to taking the diversity of human religious practices from over 100,000 years, spanning thousands of cultures and languages, putting those into a blender, and saying that what they all have in common is exactly what Newton is saying.
And I think that’s ridiculous.
Alan Fox,
Of course its ok for you to believe its delusional. Why should you be offended (or anyone) if FMM thinks you are wrong about a God, and why should he mind if you don’t believe him?
But one thing we certainly do see is a lot more vitriol from your side about whose belief is right. As I have pointed about before, the ones who are nastiest on this are the atheists, and by a long shot.
I don’t think that is even in question. Look at Adapa, Rumraket, Richard, OMagain, Tom English (calling Denysie a click bait whore-How old is this guy), Gregory, Newton, Stormfield…its not even close. You guys have the market cornered when it comes to meaningless, ad hominen name calling childishness.
Unless you told fifth you know no matter what he says that he does not hold the belief that God exists because you know it is delusional, it is not equivalent .
I think the idea was that if he really believes it, well, he’s just stating his belief. If that’s all that matters, though, I’d think if a Nazi dropped by we could end up “discussing” Hitler’s beliefs on Aryans and subhumans as well, so I don’t see how that works as a rule.
Especially, though, it certainly doesn’t facilitate discussion, it’s something that prevents there being any basis for discussion. It’s designed for presuppers to be able to believe in their own minds that they win, even though they never began to engage with the issues in a meaningful way.
Which is why discussion with FMM is hardly worth the trouble. Sometimes I make a point in response, but let it drop soon after because he’s short-circuited any ability to get to the important questions.
Glen Davidson
Kantian Naturalist,
You don’t know what hunter gatherers thought, and that is irrelevant anyway. To say, Oh, ancient cavemen might not have believed in a God is just a diversion. EVERY known society has overwhelmingly believed in a guiding God. That is just fact. You can try to deny it all you want, but that changes nothing.
You have zero reason to believe Newton wouldn’t feel exactly the same way now as he did then. He didn’t base his observations on the believes of the day, he based it on his intuition about the incredible sophistication and precision of the human form-the symmetry of the body, the perfection of the eye…
Nothing that science has done since his time has made it any easier to explain the issues that he argued.
Lots of smart people don’t believe in evolution nonsense. You seem to have a problem accepting that.
Wow! Phoodoo’s telepathy goes back in time.
Right, but the rule is the assumption of honesty regardless of belief. Joe G might be the biggest liar in the world but to call him that would be against the norms of the blog
It is not that you wrong about the existence of God, fifth knows you believe in the existence of God and you are misreporting your disbelief.
Does Buddhism believe in a guiding God? Did the ancient Mayans believe in a guiding God? What about traditional African religions? Did the Egyptians?
My point here is that while religious symbols, rituals, and practices are indeed ubiquitous, there is a diversity here that cannot be reduced to “believing in a guiding God”.
I never made any claims about what Isaac Newton would have thought or wouldn’t have thought if he knew what we know now about niche construction, evolutionary developmental biology, or the physics of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamic systems.
I very much doubt he would have the same “intuitions” as he did then, but that’s because I think that our ‘intuitions’ are grounded in our background knowledge of the world. If the background knowledge is different, then so too are the intuitions.
That’s where you’re quite badly wrong, I’m afraid. His argument only works as an argument against a very simplistic version of materialism. It doesn’t work in response to contemporary biology.
I have no problem accepting that that is true. I just think that it’s unfortunate that so many people are either ignorant of biology or falsely believe that evolution theory and religious faith are incompatible.
The Atheist Delusion is powerful.
I see truth as a distraction.
Does anyone here (other than perhaps Patrick and Alan) think truth is physical?
Christians don’t think God is physical.
Well, DUH!
Have you read Atheist Delusions? I read Reason, Faith, and Revolution and The Dawkins Delusion?. I thought both were outstanding and highly recommend them. But that’s all the time I’m willing to devote to criticisms of a third-rate hack like Dawkins.*
a third-rate hack qua philosopher. Perhaps as a biologist he’s decent. I wouldn’t know.
Her nibs has extended the same grace to you, so perhaps you should be thankful.
According to Elizabeth, in order for a statement to be a lie, it must be deliberate, and the person making the statement must know it is in fact false.
I would think that accusing someone of being delusional is against the rules.
It would violate the rule that one is to address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster, for example, implying that other posters are mentally ill or demented.
Why not enforce the rules in spite of what Elizabeth says and let the chips fall where they may? Afraid of being fired? LoL!
That would be interesting to see.
Gregory is a theist. Perhaps you meant Glen.
All three and also The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. I like McGrath alot.
I really could spend a great deal of time bashing atheists but choose not to. (so far. hah)
Kantian Naturalist,
Dawkins is technically smart but he tries to bend to rules of biology to meet his world view.
Page 50 of the blind watchmaker where he tries to demonstrate cumulative selection is a great example. This genetic algorithm has been debated extensively here but the simple weakness of his argument is that it requires exact knowledge of the final protein sequence which is certainly not true in evolutionary biology.
At this point the scientific community is becoming more skeptical of natural selections ability to innovate. This is part of what the recent meeting at the royal society was about.
True, there must be an intent to deceive. So your point is fifth is not lying about his belief that atheists know God exists? I agree. To say otherwise would be contrary to the assumption of honesty. Agree?
If there is only one God the Theist Delusion is even greater
Just divorced from reality.
That hardly makes grossly false statements less damaging to meaningful discussion. It is a measure of how appalling and anti-reality his presuppositions really are.
Glen Davidson
colewd,
This endlessly repeated claim is incorrect. One would not need to know the sequence at all. Dawkins chooses a target, it is true. But that target is not the only sequence upon which the algorithm will settle. Any target, taken at random from the entirety of ‘Weasel-space’, would be found in approximately equal time by this particular method. It’s not particularly realistic, but your specific criticism of it is invalid. The same – or a different – computer could generate a target completely at random, unseen by anyone. The algorithm would converge upon it, sure as eggs. It requires no knowledge.
Allan Miller,
All those dice threads I did…
Allan Miller,
Yes, you are technically right but it does not change the point I am trying to make to KN. This is not a realistic simulation of natural selection. DNA does not compare changes to any type of targets. It needs to search until biological advantage is reached.
That claim about the Royal Society is not quite correct.
At least as far as the schedule of talks indicates, they were discussing such things as: the theoretical advantages of the ‘Extended Evolutionary Synthesis’, niche construction, developmental plasticity, process ontology, epigenetic inheritance, and rejecting the nature/culture dichotomy.
In other words, the discussions weren’t so much about questioning the role of natural selection as they were about broadening our understanding of the diverse mechanisms generating biological variability on which natural selection can operate.
No it doesn’t. I think it is designed that way
From the perspective of a kid a needle prick is a bad thing from the perspective of the doctor it’s a necessary evil. It’s not absolutely the best from anyone’s perspective although it does result in less suffering in the world.
We don’t praise the Doctor for the needle pick but for the reduction in suffering that results from it.
The same goes for this world I would never claim it’s the best possible world but it’s a lot better than the alternative. Besides the best possible world would not have a place for defectives like me.
peace
It’s not just my belief it’s revelation.
God is truth It’s not that I believe God is truth.
Civil: I’ll grant that your God exists I just don’t feel that he is worthy of worship
Uncivil: Your God is just a delusion regardless of what you mean by the term.
two can play that game
Peace
Oh contraire the “civil” version is nothing but granting your Godless relativistic starting point and thus conceding the argument from the get go.
It makes you the authority and God’s ability to demonstrate his existence dependent on whether you choose to recognize him.
Peace
Mung,
Indeed!
Suppose I belonged to a group of natives that worshiped a sacred mountain as God. Now suppose you claimed that God did not exist.
All I would have to do to prove you were wrong is to point you to the mountain.
Claiming that the mountain is not God does not do anything except insult my God. That is not a very civil thing to do.
Now you could I suppose demonstrate that the mountain did not have the characteristics that I claim for it. But that is a far cry from simple denial it would take some work.
If you don’t want to do that another option would be to grant that my god exists but point out that you don’t think it is worthy of worship.
peace
Kantian Naturalist,
If natural selection explained life’s diversity, why would you need to extend the synthesis?
Do you think any of these subjects helped bridge the darwinian mechanisms gap Michael Behe created with his bacterial flagellum motor?
What does that have to do with it?
Every choice involves trade offs even if you are omnipotent or omnipresent.
God can’t choose to make a world where the sun always shines and the ground is watered by thunderstorms. That is because of the law of non contradiction
I just did. Perhaps you could do the same
peace
it’s not an assertion it’s a definition (and revelation)
peace
Again that is not what I’m saying as I have repeatedly expressed here.
Would it be OK if I was to take your continuing to accuse me of something I have denied as your calling me a liar?
It tells me that if the rules demand that I lie or deny the truth I should break them.
peace
That is like asking me to provide an argument that says
“Only if one believes in mathematics can one believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4”
It’s just silly
If you believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4 you believe in mathematics. I don’t need to prove it, your own thoughts prove it.
Believing that 2+2=4 is believing in mathematics
and
Believing that X is true is believing in truth
peace
You have repeatedly said that those who say they are atheists actually believe in God. That is calling them liars.
That’s basically what you do, incidentally. You call God that which is not and has never been God. Then befuddle things further by calling atheists theists if they think anything is true.
It’s just a giant bowl of ridiculous.
“Silly” is a very good word for your own position on this matter.
Basically, FMM is saying that since we can discuss whether or not there is a God, we all know that there is a God.
Of course it’s “definition” in the same way that ID is “definition” that life is designed because it is how we find it to be, functionally complex. Rather than legitimately making a case, you just assert and assert again, hoping that you can win by exhausting the reasonable ones. Passive-aggression to the hilt, and the complete opposite of civility and decency.
Glen Davidson
That would be a good evidence for the existence of flubber.
Again
no it is not.
If I say a child knows it’s wrong to steal even though he swipes a cookie when no one is looking. I’m not saying that he is guilty of two offenses I’m just saying that he needs to do a little self examination.
Listen, if this is too much to get your head around why don’t we just avoid the subject? Don’t claim that I’m deluded to believe in God or that their is no evidence for God’s existence or the like and I won’t point out what you know
peace
OK, Then by analogy to be civil don’t claim that you don’t know God exists while looking at the mountain.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
You are basically (like Neil) just saying that you don’t think that God is worthy of worship.
That is no surprise I knew that about you already and it’s a far cry from saying that God does not exist.
peace
No, I’m saying that if you can discuss anything at all you know there is a God.
That is simply because God is the basis and foundation for all thought and discourse.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Non sequitur
premise 1) truth is the foundation for thought and discourse
premise 2) God is truth
conclusion God is the foundation for thought and discourse
The syllogism is valid.
If you have a problem with one of the premises feel free to present your counter argument. But remember you must do so with out appealing to truth because that’s the God you claim not to believe in.
peace