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.
See, this is what happens when an apologist strays from the presuppositional script and starts improvising.
And who made that law, huh?
I actually didn’t. I said belief in deities is delusional nonsense. I don’t accuse you in particular, nor do I think you are generally delusional. Nor do I usually spend much time talking beliefs with others. I certainly don’t start such discussions. If you can manage to keep your beliefs to yourself, you have my blessing to believe whatever you want. But if you assert stuff that is clearly wrong or evidence-free, I reserve the right to challenge it.
And I think I’ll follow KN’s suggestion. Life is short and not a rehearsal.
I realize that this is a subject you haven’t looked at very closely but I assure you that my position is not at all unusual for a christian.
quote;
God however is indeed called in multiple ways great, good, wise, blessed, true, and anything else that seems not to be unworthy of him; but his greatness is identical with his wisdom (he is not great in mass but in might), and his goodness is identical with his wisdom and greatness, and his truth is identical with them all; and with him being blessed is not one thing, and being great or wise or true or good, or just simply being, another
end quote:
Augustine of Hippo
I know you like a good book. Might I suggest this.
quote:
“It is divine simplicity that enables Christians to meaningfully confess that God is most absolute in his existence and attributes. adherents to this doctrine reason that of God were composed of parts in any sense he would be dependent upon those parts for his very being and thus the parts would be ontologically prior to him. If this were the case he would not be most absolute, that is, wholly self-sufficient and the first principle of all other things. Thus, only if God is “without parts” can he be “most absolute.”
end quote:
If you just want a cursory overview here you go
http://www.iep.utm.edu/div-simp/
If you want to dismiss something it is better not to do so from a position of Ignorance
peace
I just want to go on record that I did not instigate this discussion.
I merely responded to Omagain’s question about why miracles were not more common. Everything else just flowed from that comment.
That includes the “God is obviously an SSB” tangent.
I really don’t enjoy making you all so upset it’s honestly not my intention. It just seems to happen when atheists get their presuppositions challenged.
Might I suggest that you all take a deep breath and drink some sweet tea. I know it helps for me
peace
Not to nit pick but I think you said that any revelation I thought I had was the result of my own delusions or those passed on to me.
Oh well. I really have no problem with you expressing what you believe to be true with out being castigated . I just would like the same privilege.
peace
PS I hope you have a merry Christmas.
It’s the obnoxious nature of the presuppositional apologetic that’s the problem.
Imagine if I engage in a debate about e.g. meteorology from the standpoint that….
a) It’s impossible my position is wrong.
b) I have super-special access to knowledge unavailable to my opponent.
c) My opponent actually knows I am right and they are wrong.
d) My opponent is unable to admit this because of an impenetrable psychological barrier.
….would anyone be surprised that my opponent cries foul?
But of course when they do object….
e) Strong objections are to be expected and only go to prove my position is the correct one.
I think there may be one ID friendly moderator.
I have that one. And the Kindle is only 9.99
Of course this is not a debate about meteorology but a discussion about the most obvious and inescapable fact in all of existence and your efforts to deny the same .
Such a thing can’t help but be a little one sided.
😉
peace
Imagine having a debate about the existence of air with an opponent who takes a deep breath before he expounds on all the reasons why he is sure air does not exist.
and then gets mad because you point out that his chest is rising and falling.
peace
It’s the idea that atheism is parasitic. It has no ideas and concepts of its own. It lives and thrives only through the use and abuse of entities and concepts that have their basis in philosophy and religion which are antithetical to atheism.
Lots of folks here are proud of that. How often do we hear that atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods as if that is something to boast about?
peace
I’m sorry, FMM but Augustine notwithstanding, characteristics are not parts, and even they were, wisdom is never identical to, e.g. strength anyway. Those passages are utter nonsense, as you could have learned from many philosophers since medieval times. You are content in your fantasies, however.
I know, you probably think god is air, too.
God has no parts. That characteristics are not parts is not an issue.
If air is physical then God is not air.
See, you know that, but you’re in denial of it.
You’ll breathe air yet you won’t admit that God exists.
Glen Davidson
Are parents a concept reserved for theists?
How about the concept of air? The definition of air?
Which of these concepts are used by atheists?
You seem to have recovered nicely from your castigation.
Lack of belief in God or gods entails precisely what?
Lack of belief in God or gods entails precisely what?
Lack of belief in God or gods entails precisely what?
Someone’s been drinking from the well of Murray.
Of course not, since it isn’t about belief on a single proposition. Do you or do you not believe there is a personal God? The answer is either yes or no, and depending on which one, you are either an atheist or not.
Whatever your answer, that mere answer to the question do not “have” any ideas or concepts “of it’s own” and it would be nonsensical to criticize it on that basis.
I don’t believe there’s a personal God – therefore I use and abuse which entities and concepts in philosophy and religion which are antithetical to atheism?
Please give examples.
Are we to take this as a retraction of your claim that atheism “lives and thrives only through the use and abuse of entities and concepts that have their basis in philosophy and religion which are antithetical to atheism?
If so, I accept your retraction. We all make mistakes and you’re not the first to have made a category error.
Yep. It’s hard not to come away from a discussion with a presuppositionalist, having to the impression that they have if not a fear, an outright contempt for philosophy and linguistics.
The fear and insecurity and the need to insist that God is greater than anything and everything have gone so far that they’re prepared to say things that don’t even make sense.
God is truth, not God says true things and never lies. Not “it is true that God exists and always says the truth”. No, God is truth. It doesn’t make sense, it’s a misuse of the words and concepts. This need to put God above everything, even the very method of thought used to determine whether God exists, is desperate and infantile.
God is goodness. Not God is good to someone, or God’s actions and intentions are good. Or it is God’s nature to be perfectly morally good in His acts and intentions. No, God is goodness itself. Same thing, it doesn’t make logical sense. It’s an incoherent statement.
I’m tired of reading this stupid babbling blather that doesn’t mean anything and just amounts to nothing more than vacuous, incoherent mantras you’re supposed to say to “prove” how much greater you think God is than everything else.
Mung,
It’s actually the other way round. What you just said there is what you theists tell yourself at night to pretend you’ve not wasted your entire life on nonsense.
For an example of such nonsense, see the OP! You support such nonsense, you are on the side of such drivel! And yet you act superior. You are turning into WJM and FMM. Atheists can’t even argue as arguing is a concept stolen from theism! What rot. No wonder you lot are on the way out.
If Jesus is physical then Jesus is not God
If you claim that air is your God I will be happy to admit that I’m not an atheist and God does indeed exist 😉
peace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union
peace
I think I notice a new qualifier. I wonder why that came about 😉
Is it OK for an atheist to believe in God as long as God is not personal?
I would also be interested in hearing your definition of personal as I’m quite sure that mine would be different
peace
Yeah, he promised, and then immediately backslid–our local avatar of Truth.
This is an old idea but it is also a live one. Philosophers are still kicking it around today and no mortal blows have been landed. Most of the criticisms are simply the result of not understanding what is being proffered.
If you have any specific objections I’d be happy to discuss but simply claiming “utter nonsense” is not a very productive way forward.
There has a lot of ink that has been spilled on both sides and it would not be a bad idea to familiarize yourself a little bit before you dismiss so flippantly.
Peace
PS If I’m wrong and you have spent a good deal of time looking into divine simplicity I apologize
Oh contraire
The need to put your own judgements and determinations above God is the very root of all the desperate and infantile rebellion since the Garden.
God is by definition above everything
The very Idea that our own judgements and determinations can somehow be “above God” is not only irrational in the extreme it’s futility should be obvious with just a moments reflection.
Apparently that sort of contemplation just never happens with the atheist
peace
Promised what? I want to be known as someone who keeps his promises so please remind me what I’ve done to backslide
peace
I assume he was sincere and I am just misinterpreting the evidence to the contrary
Actually I think it’s a red herring to focus on that qualifier, as I did not intend to bring that up to be pedantic or throw goalposts around what the definition of a person or to be personal, is. Not even sure why I used the word other than it seems to be a common expression.
I’m fine with just asking “do you believe there is a God?” I know you do of course, I did not intend to ask that in a literal sense as if I’m confused about or don’t know what you would answer.
I’m not one of those atheists who run around saying shit like “he doesn’t really believe it”. I’m pretty sure you really believe what you say you believe. Generally speaking, if people tell me they believe there is a God I’m fine with taking their word for it. I was a believer myself into my mid twenties, I know it is possible to sincerely and truly believe.
Ok That makes sense. We are good on that point.
peace
That you would use phrases like ‘MY god is X’ and ‘well, you certainly believe in what I cal ‘god.”
Lack of belief that Gods exist or don’t exist, is the concept of hierarchy stolen from theism? That knowledge is provisional and a bottom up process, is the emotion of fear of the unknown stolen from theism? That in light of changing information beliefs change, is the concept that survival requires cooperation stolen from theism?
You indicated that you would shift to locutions like ‘MY god is identical to X’ and ‘well, you DO believe in what I call “god.”‘
As for my creds on discussing the nature of divinity, my Ph.D. thesis was called ‘Substance and Mode: a Spinozistic Study.’ I’m sure it’s in the Brown University library if you need to check whether I’m competent to engage with you on this matter.
And I disagree with you about whether this remains a matter of controversy. It’s an old, long- killed confusion.
If god is omnipresent, and god is truth, then there’s no state of affairs in which there’s no truth. If something is false when it lacks truth, then there’s no such thing as untruth.
God doesn’t exist must be a true statement
Yes yes bla bla bla so great so overwhelming so north of the north-pole he’s south of it. For fucks sake you are a grown man, can’t you see how fucking silly that shit is?
No, he isn’t “above everything” and to even say that is to exhibit a lack of understanding of the use of language and concepts bordering on contempt. And when you say that, it’s infantile, insecure and.. yes desperate. At best, what you can say is that God is above everything that it is posssible to be above.
This isn’t about “judging” God, or putting “judgements” on God, or about having a ladder and wanting to put things down or up on it. It’s about communication between human beings.
We have to be able talk to each other so we can make sense of what each of us say. The words have to mean the same thing for the both of us, or we end up that even TRYING to communicate becomes an exercise in futility.
The way you use words don’t make sense.
God can’t be “above truth” (or “below” it either), because whether we human beings know them or not, or whether we even can know them, there would be propositions/statements about God that would be true, and propositions/statements about God that would be false. Suppose we can’t know what is really true and suppose the only one that can, and actually does, is God. Nevertheless, those things which are true would be true, and those things which are false would be false and the point is not to “reduce” God or “rebel” or any of that shit.
Truth is not a judge, it is a relation.
For example, if God exists, it is true that God exists, and it is not true that God does not exist.
If God is necessary for the universe and life, it is true that God is necessary for the universe and life, and it is not true that God is not necessary for the universe and life.
If it is impossible that God does not exist, then it is TRUE that it is impossible that God does not exist, and it is NOT true that it is NOT impossible that God does not exist.
If God is the greatest being that can be imagined, then it is TRUE that God is the greatest being that can be imagined, and it is NOT true that God is NOT the greatest being that can be imagined.
That’s a correct use of the word truth. That’s what the word truth means, a relation between a proposition/statement and it’s referent. Truth/Falsehood is a relation between statements/propositions and the state of affairs of something. “God” is not a state of affairs of something. True or False, is!
It wouldn’t make sense to say: It is “God” that God is the greatest being imaginable, and it is not-“God” that God isn’t the greatest being imaginable.
That’s just asinine. It looks stupid, it sounds stupid, it is stupid.
It is true that two plus two equals four. It is not “God” that two plus two equals four. That’s gibberish. Nonsense. Gobbledygook.
You can’t just start blathering like an illiterate child because of this feeble need to have God placed above everything even if it doesn’t make any logical sense. It’s like saying God is north of the north-pole. No, God isn’t north of the north pole (and saying God isn’t north of the north pole isn’t to try to “judge God” or whatever silly, terrifyingly insecure shit you feel an intense need to declare) because it’s logically impossible and completely nonsensical and incoherent to say. When you say that, you’re not saying something that makes sense.
Now go ahead and start babbling these nutty inanities till your head gets all purple and starts glowing, it’s not going to make the expression sensible no matter how much you INSIST that God “is truth” (or north of the north-pole) or whatever the fuck unfathomably de-encephalized shit you feel the need to declare in your endless insecurity about how super-fucking-duper God is.
Kill the host and the parasite dies. Kill theism and atheism goes strong
dazz,
Do you think there ARE states of affairs that exemplify untruth (or is it that statements about various states of affairs are not true)? Are there ‘false facts’?
fmm,
Your god has apparently abdicated that responsibility.
I will always put my own judgements and determinations above god. Fuck your god.
Rumraket,
While I generally agree with the sentiment of your post, I think tarski and Wittgenstein have pointed out problems with making truth a relation. It’s basically a type difficulty stemming from truth being a semantic characteristic. I mean, it’s a kind of ‘correspondence’–just as Aristotle said. But it’s tough to define.
Start the world over with a little knowledge of science and nobody would even bother with theism. We can skip directly over that and lose nothing.
If every copy of every holy book was burnt we’d lose nothing worth keeping. The advancement of the world would no doubt increase.
yeah, I’m mixing states of affairs with statements about them, let’s see if I can fix that