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.
And by that I’m not “admitting” your or any god exists. I can’t hate something that I don’t think exists. But perhaps it’ll rile you a little.
When you assert that other people believe something opposite to what they state they believe you are either accusing them of being dishonest or delusional. Unless you have another explanation for it?
In any case, it’s arrogant and rude.
Once again, here is what Kantian Naturalist wrote:
With reference to his exact words, please explain why you think that “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.” makes anyone a judge as to “what qualifies as God”. The issue is your beliefs and how you present them.
It appears to correspond to reality, yes. Note that this demonstrates that it is possible to make a true statement without believing in the existence of the reification of some abstract concept.
From where I’m standing FMM has set himself up as an arbiter of what is and what is not god and what and is not true about god.
Where does it say in the bible that truth is god fmm? And why should we take that as literally true when so much else requires “interpretation”.
Who sounds more insecure?
phoodoo,
You, Mung, Fmm. Any other questions?
I mean, let’s face it, if you were that secure in your position why would you constantly seek to demonstrate its correctness?
Jonathan Bartlett (johnnyb) is a creationist and an admin here.
Actually, she was arbitrarily banned from UD. No one has ever provided an example of one of her comments there that was anything other than polite. By all appearances, she was banned for charmingly humiliating the regulars.
If you want to know why Elizabeth started this site, just read About this site in the header:
I should probably try some answers to those questions and not just assume I know them
The latter
No?
I think I understand some of that, and it partially (I reckognize, ironically) stems from my own inaccurate use of language. To be unironically fair to myself, part of that inaccuracy owes to the fact that I’m not a native english speaker, and not only am I self-taught in what little philosophy I know, what I’ve learned is not even in my 1st language, so I ask you to forgive me a bit of imprecision. I will try to clarify and make it more accurate.
Going back over my post to FMM, I think I see a few mistakes and will try to offer corrections. For example, I write
I think I should have written instead: That’s what the word truth means, the actual state of affairs, of the referent of a proposition or statement.
Oh gee, could it be the person so desperate to declare the uberness of God he’ll say outright nonsense, or the guy tired of seeing the childish abuse of words and logic, who points it out?
Will you tell me your opinion on the matter? I can’t wait to hear it and would never be able to guess.
Wow, I’m impressed that English is not your first language! I’d never have guessed that. What is your native tongue?
What I wonder is how these people know that it’s not the intent of their god to have a universe that creates it’s own life rather then have god constantly interfere? phoodoo’s god is weak and stupid. It can only create sick universes that require constant intervention.
Danish 🙂
Rumraket,
Bloody Scandinavians; they all speak English better than us!
Well, there’s definitely no unanimity on the subject of truth, but I think that very few philosophers have countenanced false facts. I’d guess that most philosophers these days are deflationists with respect to truth.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/
I’m not completely comfortable there myself, and don’t see Tarski as a deflationist. (I mean, he said himself that he was a correspondence theorist.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth#Tarski.27s_theory
BWTHDIK?
Incredible. BTW, do you know anything about the Justice Party, which, as I understand it, was a geoist/single tax party in Denmark until its recent demise?
(I don’t know much about Denmark, but I’m a bit of a Danophiliac (sp?) anyhow. I also admire Per Norgard.)
Is it “better than we”?
walto,
Thanks walto. Off to do some reading on the subject
Theists believe many different things, just like other people.
I would say anyone who requires everyone to believe the same thing
I guess I can reformulate the syllogism as follows:
If God is truth, untruth is the absence of truth, and God is omnipresent, then truth is omnipresent and there’s no such thing as absence of truth. Therefore, every proposition is true.
Since it’s trivially true that the negation of any true statement is false, some of the premises must be false, either God is not truth, or untruth is not the absence of truth, or God is not omnipresent.
That’s clever. I think if I were theistically inclined I’d probably focus my defense on what “omnipresent” means.
Speaking of omnipresence, I note that FMM has denied the physicality of God. I find that hard to reconcile with being everywhere. It seems like that which takes up no space ought to be said to be nowhere. But this speculation likely just highlights my own shortcomings in imaginationland.
It’s weird. It seems like most people want both of these:
The problem is that if everybody always agrees with them—not terribly unique.
The baby Jesus needed air. Just not for crying. Unlike the babies here.
I just took it as an admission of a crush. 🙂
I love revisionist history!
And God is pure act, therefore God is truth.
🙂
From what I remember, she was begrudgingly tolerated up for quite a while. One day, Arrington decided that no one could be tolerated at Uncommon Descent if they did not accept the universality and necessity of the law of the excluded middle. (I think that there had been some back-and-forth between him, StephenB, William Murray, and KairosFocus about why it’s not possible to have a rational discussion with someone who rejects Aristotelian logic and mind-body dualism. Morons.) In the context of the discussion of “the laws of thought”, Lizzie pointed out (perfectly correctly) that the law of the excluded middle is not valid under some interpretations of quantum mechanics. And then she was banned.
Let that be emphasized: she was banned for pointing out — correctly — that the law of the excluded middle does not hold under some interpretations of quantum mechanics.
That was enough to show that she rejected “the laws of thought,” ergo it was impossible to have a rational conversation with her, ergo there was no place for her at Uncommon Descent.
Can you link to any comments that Lizzie made on UD that would warrant banning? This challenge has been issued to Barry’s buddies before but none have met it.
No wonder you love the Babble
When someone is banned at UD, all of that person’s comments are erased. There’s no historical record to check for the accuracy of any claims that we’re making about why Lizzie was banned.
Kantian Naturalist,
All the empirical evidence gone. Yet people still make assertions. Hunh.
A quick Google shows a number of comments by “Elizabeth Liddle” still extant at UD.
Huh. You’re correct, and I was mistaken!
Patrick’s right. Stalinist total erasure of comments has happened but it doesn’t seem to be the norm. And of course, considering the content that Lizzie provided at UD, erasing all her comments would have left rather large holes in the fabric. It takes someone of the calibre of Aurelio Smith to provoke a total erasure event. 🙂
Sorry but that doesn’t ring a bell. I’d have to google to know anything about it.
Aside from the internal logical conflict, you’re setting up not just an equivocation (based on the context in which you keep providing examples of this “Truth”), but also a reification of such a term. The whole thing is nothing but a snarl of contradictions and fallacies. If you’re ok with that, have at it. Me? Such is just unacceptable nonsense.
I don’t care how “powerful” you think those terms are in some abstract or metaphorical sense – they simply do not even remotely approach the concept of “omnipotence” in any stretch of any imagination. Here:
Simply put, to say that Love and Truth have “unlimited power” is just plain absurd. They don’t in any understanding of those terms. They have very finite parameters of affect, and even within those parameters they are limited in their overall influence.
In short, your claim is absurd and illogical.
walto,
Uncanny. I hovered over the same joke briefly, before alighting on a different flower!
A typical attempt by you to shift the burden of proof.
But to answer your question, no. But then, I’m not Barry either, so why are you asking me?
More revisionist history. I love it!
I guess you were never banned though.
Mung,
No, I was never banned. I decided to stop participating. I don’t know if my account is still active or if it was deleted at some point.
So then I can rest my case
I was definitely not asking you if the reification of some abstract concept exists. I was asking if truth exists. You have demonstrated that you believe it does.
So there is that
peace
Geeze,
Even slower this time
God is truth. That is what he is. God is truth even if no one believed he was truth it’s not about us, it’s about him.
KN statements want to make it all about his and my beliefs and opinions and not about God and his being.
There is a simple solution to the apparent icky-ness you feel when reading my statement. As I have already suggested The atheist can simply say.
“Well truth is not my God”
Or
“I don’t think Truth is worthy of the title of deity”
Or
“I can grant that your God exists I just am not interested in placing as much value on truth as you do”
I would be golden with any thing like that.
Such statements are simply subjective appraisals of the value you as an atheist ascribe to truth not claims of the right or authority to decide who or what God is.
peace
No, and I have been quite clear as to why. The fact that one can make a true statement does not imply the existence of “truth”.
No, that’s your belief. As has been pointed out repeatedly, it is both nonsensical as stated and disingenuous given your other claims about your god.
This is all about your beliefs. You haven’t provided any evidence or argument to support the existence of any god.
That’s because this is all about your beliefs and opinions.
One can also say, quite accurately, that equating your god with the abstract concept of “truth” is nonsensical.
I note that you failed to answer the actual question asked. Again, please explain why you think that “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.” makes anyone a judge as to “what qualifies as God”. All that statement refers to is your beliefs.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.
(Joh 14:6a)
Sanctify them in the truth; your word (logos) is truth.
(Joh 17:17)
etc
peace
I almost swallowed my gum on that one.
In Patrick’s world the fact that one can paint a red barn door does not imply the existence of the color red.
Listen Patrick I know you are trying to make a materialist point about the nonexistence of anything that you can’t see or touch but I just don’t care.
It does not matter
You can if you wish, think of truth as nothing but an abstraction existing only in the brains of primates. It does not matter because you have demonstrated that you know “the abstraction” exists when you evaluate statements even if it’s only a value you ascribe in your brain.
Peace