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.
Alan Fox,
Does this standard apply for everyone Alan.*
Just kidding, just kidding, of course it doesn’t.
No it’s not. It’s an acknowledgement that you don’t mean by “God” what nearly everybody else means by God. It’s true that it’s less necessary for you to make this acknowledgement with me, because I know where you’re coming from, but it’s required by civility, and I’d appreciate it. That should be enough.
OK. FMM, I feel like those remarks were assholish, and I believe pretty much everybody else here agrees with me about that (since they’ve said so numerous times).
That’s a terrible analogy. Bell is in a position to tell everybody what telephones are. You aren’t in a position to come up with a whack definition of “God” and foist it on everybody else as if they used it too.
Your “This mountain is God” was perfect. You simply won’t abide by its moral.
walto,
Good. Because I of course could never say the exact same thing, or it would be moved to guano by Neil.
But you and Glen are atheists, so you can, of course. So you might as well use that loophole the moderators allow you.
That, and he actually has the evidence for what he’s saying.
Bell got where he did (in part) by using terms for understanding, rather than as an attempt at hegemony.
Glen Davidson
Anyhow, a better analogy would be Alexander Graham FMM telling us that the telephone is all human communication, and that he deserves a patent on it. No invention, no discovery, no evidence, of course, just a blanket appropriation of all human communication which will now be called “telephone.”
Glen Davidson
Why don’t you share your ability to observe the unobservable with the rest of the scientific world. Nobel Prize for you in it I’d bet.
There is a small amount of evidence for evolution.
Like when Patrick accuses Salvador of child abuse?
Based on the assumption the universe is isotropic ,it is necessary only to observe the observable.
ok, I’ll jump in here. 🙂
Do you think that saying that God is Truth is a definition of God?
Christians believe that God is Love. Would that also be a definition of God?
So someone like fmm might say that if you accept that love exists then you accept that God exists, because God is Love.
Is that also wrong and offensive?
Yea, but there is an entire universe of evidence for a God.
Not all moderators feel the same, it seems. I would ask for my money back
Like I said, you do not observe that the universe is expanding. It’s based on an assumption about what you would observe if you could observe. Why not just agree and we can move on.
Which God?
There is a mountain of evidence for God. 🙂
I agreed with you you could not see the unobservable. Based on the assumption of isotropism it is unnecessary. Is that what we agree on?
Moving on
Love is God
God is Logic
Love is Logic
God is Love.
Love is an emotion
God is an emotion
Child abuse is a loaded term, he should rephrase his point. In my opinion.
In what way is the universe evidence for God?
phoodoo,
Which religion is correct?
Yes, I’d say that’s wrong. And could be offensive depending on the context.
As for whether it’s definitional, I take it that according to FMM, it’s the case both that God has all his properties essentially and that they are in some sense identical/indistinguishable. I don’t think that makes any sense, myself, but it does seem to entail that each characteristic is definitional.
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Do you see how to know God is to know love and to know love is to know God? If you love you know God exists even if you claim to not believe that God exists.
Just saying that perhaps FMM isn’t so far off base.
Right. They probably equal frequency. Oops. Sorry. I confused you with Frankie. You obviously don’t believe in the same nonsense as Frankie.
But it it IS way off base. Even if God were the SOURCE of love, that wouldn’t make God love. And to love is not to know God either. Those are just pretty metaphors.
I don’t mind if people say them: I’m sure they’re comforting. I just note that they’re not really appropriate for philosophy discussions, except as examples of fallacies.
Of course red exists, if properties exist. Red is a property, and so is truth. Truth and falsity are properties of propositions (or of asserted sentences, if ‘propositions’ offends the nominalists). And red is, initially, a property of visible objects.
I personally would prefer to construe it as a relational property holding between wavelengths, reflective surfaces, and primate visual systems, though I don’t work in philosophy of color. (From what I understand, it’s really complicated!)
For that matter, both “is true” and “is false” are predicated of assertions in virtue of the complex relations between those assertions, the context in which they are uttered, and the structure of the world (among many other things).
I guess I don’t really know what “I believe in truth” is supposed to mean. I would use it to mean something like, “I have reasons to believe that some of my beliefs are true, and truth is valuable to me. I would rather have true beliefs than false beliefs, to the greatest extent possible. I want to discover more things about the world so I can have more true beliefs about it”.
A golem is inscribed with Hebrew words in some tales (for example, some versions of Chełm and Prague, as well as in Polish tales and versions of Brothers Grimm), such as the word emet (אמת, “truth” in Hebrew) written on its forehead. The golem could then be deactivated by removing the aleph (א) in emet, thus changing the inscription from “truth” to “death” (met מת, meaning “dead”).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem
It would appear that truth is something other than just a relation between statements or a property of propositions. At least to Jews.
🙂
I just came across this and could not help but smile
quote:
You think that my denial of Sweden is an actual claim of some kind, that it’s a belief. But it isn’t. It’s a non-belief. There’s nothing I need to explain–rather, I’m talking about something I lack, namely a belief in Sweden, so I don’t need to give any evidence for it.
I don’t have to provide evidence for my non-belief in Atlantis, El Dorado, Shangri-La, or the Customer Support Department at American Airlines, and nor need I for my non-belief in Sweden. I’m not making a claim of any kind–in fact, just the opposite: I’m claiming nothing. I’m merely rejecting one your beliefs, your belief in Sweden.
end quote:
Andy Bannister
Now that is funny I don’t care who you are
peace
me neither.
The same goes for “I believe in God”.
I don’t believe in God any more than I believe in reality or in KN. I simply acknowledge the existence of those things.
My Beliefs have nothing to do with it.
peace
My position on Divine simplicity is the majority understanding among studied theists since the ancient Greeks. It’s especially popular with Christians. Just because you are unaware of it does not mean it is obscure or uncommon.
peace
Wow, what a non sequitur!
Glen Davidson
God is funny. If you believe in funny you believe in God. 🙂
To be a non sequitur it needs to be an argument. It’s not, it’s just a funny bit that reminds me of somebody.
peace
A conclusion ought to follow from the premises, because that’s the only way we can know it’s true?
Interesting word game, equivocating on the different meanings of “belief”. In one meaning, it’s a matter of observation (I believe it’s raining!) and in the other, it’s a matter of believing what you know ain’t so (I believe in the afterlife).
Acknowledging the existence of something for which there is no empirical evidence is simply an abuse of language. Like saying “I don’t believe in Martians or mermaids, because when I say they exist, I’m simply reciting an objective fact for which no belief is necessary!”
You really don’t understand much at all, apparently.
Glen Davidson
It’s a continual laugh fest here at TSZ. Empiricism is a joke. The punch-lines are never-ending. I say be skeptical of empiricism, but have fun while doing it.
Seemed to work for Socrates.
Do you have empirical evidence for that claim? If not quit abusing language.
If you observe that it’s raining you don’t say “I believe it’s raining!” You say “It’s raining!!”
You say “I believe it’s raining!” when you are not sure it’s raining.
I’m sure that reality and KN and God exist.
peace
How so?
What’s your alternative?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Common_Sense_Realism
peace
The God that made the universe.
You failed to provide a link to where you found that.
It seems foolish.
He does call it a “denial of Sweden”. And that already contradicts “non-belief”.
To use one of his examples, I do not deny Atlantis. I am doubtful that there ever was an Atlantis, but “doubtful” is a lot weaker than “deny”.
And note that I am not rejecting your belief in God. Only you could reject that, since it is your belief. I do not have a corresponding belief, but I am not rejecting any of your beliefs (as if I could). And I am not denying anything, except that I have a corresponding belief.
So Patrick, instead of claiming that atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods, should just say that he lacks the same beliefs a theist has. I could go for that.
Interesting.
How would one know if beliefs corresponded?
What specific evidence do you have that our beliefs do not “correspond”?
Do you have any evidence at all besides your denial itself?
peace
Me too. It’s only civil.
I believe God is worthy of worship Patrick does not. That just about sums it up.
peace
It’s from this book
peace
I have not defined “correspond”. I’m using it in an ordinary non-technical common sense way. So just take it to be my assertion, with no further explanation needed. (Maybe use some of that Scottish common sense realism that you referred to).
Do you mean to say, “I just feel like its foolish.” ?
Because its getting really confusing, in no small part because of you, in knowing what can be said, and which parties get to say whatever they want and which don’t.*
*Ok, that’s not true, I know which parties get to flaunt any rules and which ones don’t-you made that clear.