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.
The “it” referred to a quote within a post.
There’s no site rule against applying “foolish” to part of a post. There is a rule against applying “foolish” to a participant in our discussion. This has been often expressed as “address the post, not the poster.”
From what I’ve seen, Patrick worships “objective empirical evidence,” whatever that is. Apparently, whatever it is, it is worthy of worship.
Neil Rickert,
No fucking kidding Neil.
So Glen says to FMM, “I just feel like you are ignorant” and Alan says that’s Ok, because he prefaced his insult with “I just feel…”, so since its his opinion, this was deemed ok. Walto says, “You are being assholish” to FMM and that is also Ok.
But then I said ok Alan, “I just feel you are an asshole” that is not ok. I said “I just feel Tom is saying RichardHughes, with a giant increase in brain power would just be smart enough to whack himself in the face with a playpus” that is also not Ok.
So why did you delete my posts that said, “I just feel…”?
And why didn’t you delete DNA Jocks post accusing Mung of trolling?
I just feel you are very ignorant.
God could exist and not have created the universe.
Don’t let Patrick know you did that. 😉
peace
Doubtful. Consider that phoodoo’s god is the one-size-fits-all answer to questions too difficult to research (or too difficult to accept what research discovers). In other words, his god exists in the first place to create the universe, life and everything. What’s the use of dreaming up a god to “explain” something and then denying your own “explanation”?
As it is, phoodoo’s god has been reduced by the advent of scientific verification to one that doesn’t DO anything, but once did, honest.
Reid + Kant = Peirce
Hey KN,
Given your encyclopedic knowledge of the history of philosophy and moderate curiosity of presuppositionialism I think I have the perfect book for you.
Clark looks at the epistemological thinking of the greats from a presupositionalist perspective. The book should give you a better idea of where folks like me are coming from than we could ever accomplish in a forum like this. Be forewarned it is pretty dry.
I would definitely be interested in your critique.
check it out
peace
For instance?
Thanks for the suggestion, though unfortunately I need to pass. I have too many other books I must read for my teaching and research.
(Besides which, why would Clark end with Dewey? That’s just when philosophy started to get interesting!)
Gordon Clark….
Infinite love.
And then God eternally punishes people for that sin.
Could any entity be less worthy of worship? What a hideous view of the Universe.
Merry Christmas everybody!
The book was published in 1957. If I remember correctly Dewey’s “knowing and Known” was still current at that time.
I’ll say that once you get a feel for Clark’s approach you have a good idea what he would think of modern attempts at epistemology.
peace
Clark was nothing if not saccharine 😉
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Without getting into it, let me just say that, based on the customer reviews I read, Clark and I have utterly opposed views about the very nature of philosophy.
On that I would be pretty confident. 😉
That is why I think you would enjoy the read it’s good to have our sensibilities tweaked from time to time and to be exposed to different viewpoints.
For the record I enjoy Clark but I don’t want to give the impression that I’m a fanboy, He definitely has his problems.
peace
Yes, some folks think God delegated that task.
To me this is the difficult aspect of philosophy. Until you understand the context in which a philosopher is writing you probably won’t understand what he’s saying.
I suggest we take a poll (just among Christians). We’ll ask them whether if somebody believes it’s raining, they must also believe in God. If the majority of them say yes, I’ll withdraw my complaint. Will you start abiding by your promise if the majority say no?
I’m sure everyone here knows that I take no comfort in defending Patrick, but this post is an example of the same bullshit you have become quite fond of here.
One can believe that nothing can be God without being worthy of worship (in fact that’s a sensible view), and (since one might very sensibly believe that the existence of truths in the world is not God), deny that the existence of truths in the world is worthy of worship.
I’m so sick of this fallacious nonsense. Fuck it. I’m through with this thread, and with you. If you start keeping your promises, o truth lover, maybe I’ll converse with you again.
I’d say that’s mostly true. Understanding a philosopher involves understanding the problems that he or she is trying to solve. But very often a philosopher is not fully aware of what those problems are, or of the social and political situations that have provoked him or her to philosophize at all. And it doesn’t help that philosophy is written at level of conceptual precision and “abstraction” that doesn’t rely on metaphor, although there is always a metaphor or vision at the beating heart of every philosophical system.
A much better question would be to ask if God is the source of all knowledge.
Instead of asking every ignorant fourth grader who claimed to be Christian we should ask those who know a little about their faith and it’s doctrines and history.
You are going to have to link to this promise as I don’t think I said what you apparently think I said.
peace
The quote was from Mung and not me.
I don’t think he is accused of reneging on any promises real or imagined.
peace
Except that there’s more than one approach to theology, too. An Augustinian, a Thomist, and a presuppositionalist might all say “yes,” but still give very different accounts as to why that is true.
Why it’s true is not what is at issue whether it’s true is.
Theists will generally affirm that God is the source of all knowledge.
Therefore according to theists if you know something God exists.
Christians will also all affirm that everyone knows that God exists (from Romans chapter 1)
That is my position in a nutshell
Peace
Kantian Naturalist,
I would say that what sets Presupositionalists apart from other schools of Christian Philosophy is that we are skeptical that human argument or evidence will ever convince a non-Christian to embrace and reverence the Christian God.
I would bet that most folks here would agree with us on that point.
peace
Four Views on Christianity and Philosophy
Mung,
you might enjoy this
https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Presuppositional-vs-Natural-Theology-K-Scott-Oliphint-Kurt-Jaros-Unbelievable
peace
Something can be the source of something, without being that thing. In it’s an example of a genetic fallacy to make that confusion. So if ‘the smart Christians’ think that God is ‘the source of truth’ they will not also think that God IS truth.
Let’s poll the smarties, rather than the 4th graders. Dunno if any of them post here, though.
Btw, I don’t think it’s my job to keep track of other people’s promises. A reminder or two ought to be sufficient.
They will if they ascribe to divine simplicity an idea that is—–
quote:
central to the classical Western concept of God.
end quote:
from here
http://www.iep.utm.edu/div-simp/
peace
Dangit walto. Now you’re trying to leave me out of the polling again!
As I said I don’t recall making any promise.
So you imagined I made some sort of promise and then you remind me that I’m not keeping it.
Is that how this goes?
btw I sense you getting a little hot under the collar
Please don’t let this upset you. I would not want to make you mad.
peace
But there’s a crucial difference between saying “One cannot adequately explain what knowledge is without understanding our knowledge in relation to God” and saying “One cannot even have any knowledge at all without also thereby knowing that God exists”.
Funny I had the sense that it was way more than a little, I also have a sense that telling someone not to let something upset them seems a bit condescending, I am sure you didn’t intend it.Tone is difficult in this medium.
I did like your post about “why it is true is not the issue”
It is seems like one must know God exists before one can know God exists
I have a question for the so called “atheists” writing here. The bible basically claims you’re liars.
Do you know god exists? If you know god exists why do you lie and claim you don’t believe in god?
If you don’t believe in god, does that mean the bible (ans subsequently fifthmonarchyman) spreads falsehoods about atheists?
troll alert!
Could you elaborate. I’m not sure I understand. Do you think I’m making a positive argument of some kind?
When I ask you to give a justification for your knowledge I’m just trying to get you to examine your presumed foundation for knowledge and to perhaps discover that it is not sufficient.
peace
I’m willing to use a different term if anyone can convince me that what Sal Cordova is doing is not child abuse.
Sal described what he teaches to young children back in January. As I noted in the comment immediately following, he is not teaching, he is using strawman mischaracterizations and other outright lies to attempt to prevent children from learning good science.
Now, religious parents teach their children all kinds of nonsense, most of which doesn’t rise to the level of what I would call abuse. This does, not just because it is going to negatively impact their real education, but because Sal knows better. Unfortunately for him, he’s demonstrated an ability to understand something of evolutionary theory that is rare among creationists. Despite that, he is abusing his position of authority to intellectually and emotionally abuse children.
Read what he’s written there and give me a better description than child abuse for what he’s doing.
I agree that it sounds condescending but it’s all I could think to do besides simply ignoring his comments. I hope he could just take a deep breath and move on.
peace
Your belief is all there is to it. That you seem unable to understand the difference between what you believe and what you can rationally claim to know is a sad commentary on the power of religion.
I’m just buffled how the bible undermines itself. Clearly innerancy is to be looked for somewhere else.
That’s not even close. If I thought your god existed, I would certainly not worship it. In fact, I’d probably feel compelled to spend my life figuring out how to kill it.
The difference is you believe a god exists. I lack that belief. I accept that you hold your belief sincerely. I’m asking you to recognize that I am just as sincere in my lack of belief.
You lack the courtesy to do so.
Indeed. Only childhood indoctrination before the ability to think critically will work.
I would agree that it would seem like that if someone was to say.
“One cannot even have any knowledge at all without also thereby knowing that God exists”.
I would not say that. On the other hand I might say
“One cannot even have any knowledge at all if God does not exist”
and
“Everyone knows God exists”
peace
Yeah, you say that a lot, but you never support it with evidence or reason. When challenged, you invariably ask others to prove you wrong.
Try something different this time. Support your claim.
If that was the case then why the incredibly low retention rate for children raised in Atheist homes?
peace
My reading is, it took perhaps 200,000 years of human history for the idea of supporting a claim empirically actually occurred to anyone. Between the advent of writing and about 300 years ago, claims were regarded as supported or not supported based on Pure Reason, whether conclusions followed from premises according to the rules of inference, etc. When premises themselves were disputed, no rational discourse was even possible.
I suspect people today have a hard time grasping the magnitude of the intellectual breakthrough of using reality, rather than pure reason, as the yardstick to measure correctness. People like FMM illustrate that even today, there are STILL people who cannot grasp the notion of appealing to empirical test to validate some notion. His sort of presupposition used to be How Things Were.
??? Retention of what? Perhaps if you provided a source for this claim, we could figure out what it means.
How do you know this?
peace
http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-atheists-have-lowest-retention-rate-compared-to-religious-groups-78029/
peace