Fatima: miracle, meteorological effect, UFO, optical illusion or mass hallucination?

Posted on by

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.

1,870 thoughts on “Fatima: miracle, meteorological effect, UFO, optical illusion or mass hallucination?”

  1. Alan Fox: But Exodus wasn’t originally written in Demotic Greek, was it?

    The word in Hebrew is אות it means

    1. sign, signal
    a. a distinguishing mark
    b. banner
    c. remembrance
    d. miraculous sign
    e. omen
    f. warning
    2. token, ensign, standard, miracle, proof

    same principle. Different language

    peace

  3. If we follow Strong’s in defining sign as—– “an unusual occurrence, transcending the common course of nature”——- and assume atheism for the sake of argument Shouldn’t we expect to see more of them than we do?

    It seems to me that if a trustworthy God did not exist we would expect to see unusual things happen more often at random places and for no good reason.

    It seems to me that a universe in which the unusual only happens in very rare instances is a little odd especially given the inherent weirdness of Quantum Mechanics.

    peace

  4. Alan Fox: Not following you. What is the same?

    Sign in the OT= sign in the NT.

    One reason we know this is because the translators of the Septuagint rendered אות as σημεῖον

    peace

  5. fifthmonarchyman: Sign in the OT= sign in the NT.

    One reason we know this is because the translators of the Septuagint rendered אות as σημεῖον

    peace

    Well, one thing I’ve learned living where people speak a different language to the one I learned as a kid is that there is not a one-to-one relationship between words and meanings across languages.

  6. Alan Fox: Well, one thing I’ve learned living where people speak a different language to the one I learned as a kid is that there is not a one-to-one relationship between words and meanings across languages.

    I agree that each term will have slightly different nuances in different languages. But we are not dealing with nuance we are dealing with the bare-bones strait forward simple definition.

    You can see that signs means signs simply by looking at the context in each of the many many times the term is used in the bible.

    This is how translation is done as I’m sure you know.

    peace

  7. Alan Fox: Well, one thing I’ve learned living where people speak a different language to the one I learned as a kid is that there is not a one-to-one relationship between words and meanings across languages.

    Like “young woman” being translated into “virgin”. 🙂

  9. Acartia: Like “young woman” being translated into “virgin”.

    It’s not “young woman” that was translated to “virgin” it was the Hebrew word עלמה.

    It was translated that way long before the rise of Christianity (second century BC).

    Modern Hebrew translators after the rise of Christianity unsurprisingly render it “young woman”.

    Either definition is acceptable. As with all words it’s best to look to the context to determine the exact meaning.

    peace

  10. fifthmonarchyman: It’s not “young woman” that was translated to “virgin” it was the Hebrew word עלמה.

    It was translated that way long before the rise of Christianity (second century BC).

    Modern Hebrew translators after the rise of Christianity unsurprisingly render it “young woman”.

    Either definition is acceptable. As with all words it’s best to look to the context to determine the exact meaning.

    peace

    So, was Mary a virgin? And were her and Joseph married? If she was a virgin then she hadn’t consummated her marriage (ie., not married). If she had consummated her marriage, not virgin. And, more importantly, would Jesus be any less the son of god if he was born to a non-virgin? Or to a prostitute? Or to a 12 year old girl?

  11. fifthmonarchyman: The rarity of “signs” nowadays is actually evidence supporting the case…that Christianity is true.

    Just once here I’d like to find a critic who would address what we actually believe instead of a straw man.

    I’ll address it. How is the rarity of signs today evidence that Christianity is true?

  13. Acartia: So, was Mary a virgin? And were her and Joseph married?

    yes, and they were betrothed that is married but with out the consummation.

    Acartia: would Jesus be any less the son of god if he was born to a non-virgin? Or to a prostitute? Or to a 12 year old girl?

    He would still be the Son of God as long as he had no human father.

    peace

  14. walto: How is the rarity of signs today evidence that Christianity is true?

    I already said did you miss it?

    again

    It seems to me that if a trustworthy God did not exist we would expect to see unusual things happen more often at random places and for no good reason.

    It seems to me that a universe in which the unusual only happens in very rare instances is a little odd especially given the inherent weirdness of Quantum Mechanics.

    Would you disagree with this aprasial? If so why?

    peace

  15. fifthmonarchyman: It seems to me that a universe in which the unusual only happens in very rare instances is a little odd especially given the inherent weirdness of Quantum Mechanics.

    You do realize that quantum mechanics fall within the natural and physical world? Not miraculous.

    At one time, chemistry was considered weird. As was electricity. And light. And magnetism. And the northern lights. Etc. Etc.

  16. fifthmonarchyman: It seems to me that a universe in which the unusual only happens in very rare instances is a little odd especially given the inherent weirdness of Quantum Mechanics.

    You seem to have missed the meaning of “unusual”. If it happened more often, it would not be considered unusual.

  17. fifthmonarchyman: It seems to me that if a trustworthy God did not exist we would expect to see unusual things happen more often at random places and for no good reason.

    It seems to me that a universe in which the unusual only happens in very rare instances is a little odd especially given the inherent weirdness of Quantum Mechanics.

    Would you disagree with this aprasial? If so why?

    I don’t understand a single word of it.

  18. fifthmonarchyman: yes, and they were betrothed that is married but with out the consummation.

    What do you think is the more likely explanation? That they were married but never had sex, or that there was a mis-translation that resulted in Mary being described as a virgin? And what if they had sex while she was pregnant? Rumour has it that this is a very common occurrence.

    Or did Mary remain a virgin her entire life, as some claim? If that is the case, why isn’t Joseph as revered as Mary?

  19. “It seems to me that a universe in which the unusual only happens in very rare instances is a little odd”

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  21. fifthmonarchyman:
    It seems to me that a universe in which the unusual only happens in very rare instances is a little odd . . . .

    With a little work you could turn this truism into an Eleventh Commandment. A Deepity worth engraving in stone. A rarity by any other name . . . .

  23. fifthmonarchyman: He would still be the Son of God as long as he had no human father.

    Why the proviso?

    In a tradition that sees no problem with talking donkeys, angels, demons and all kinds of weird shit the idea that the ‘Son of God’ might have both biological and divine parentage seems a relatively conservative proposition.

    Why would being conceived normally disqualify Jesus from being the son of God?

  24. fifthmonarchyman: It seems to me that if a trustworthyGod did not exist we would expect to see unusual things happen more often at random places and for no good reason.

    Sounds like it is not the “unusual” happening but unusual happening at random places and for no good reason. Is that correct?

  31. AhmedKiaan:
    “It seems to me that a universe in which the unusual only happens in very rare instances is a little odd”

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Seriously, you can’t make this shit up.

  32. Rumraket: Seriously, you can’t make this shit up.

    You and I may not be able to make it up, but FFM and Sal (the demonic UFO man) and VJT (the avatar of credulity) have no trouble finding a ghost in any machine available. This thread has produced an amazing quantity of tripe from our religiously inclined correspondents.

  33. So far we have a sun swooping towards the Earth (but only in the direction of Catholic believers in Portugal), rarity as a proof of, well, unusual things, and now Satanic alien thingummies (hey Sal, how do you know it wasn’t Frank Zappa out on a tear?)

    Please, religious ones, it is time to start producing credible evidence for your beliefs.

  34. walto: I don’t understand a single word of it.

    Let me try and unpack it for you. We expect natural law to be completely consistent and universal. Yet I can easily imagine a world where it was only consistent 98% of the time and only applied to 97% of the universe. As long as the laws usually held surely such a universe would contain at least a few confused observers.

    Modern physics experiments in our universe have shown that the laws are valid all the time and at mind boggling resolution at least every where we have been able to look so far.

    I see no reason why given Atheist presuppositions that we don’t see more spontaneous combustions or meteorite strikes for example. I see nothing that would prevent an occasional levitation at random times or places given slightly less rigid natural law.

    Sudden infant death happens at times in our world but not why not sudden adolescent death or sudden withering of random body parts from time to time?

    Those who would deny the existence of a completely trustworthy origin of the laws need to explain why the laws just happen to be so darn trustworthy.

    Does that help?

    peace

  35. newton: Sounds like it is not the “unusual” happening but unusual happening at random places and for no good reason. Is that correct?

    and slightly more often.

    peace

  36. fifthmonarchyman: Let me try and unpack it for you. We expect natural law to be completely consistent and universal. Yet I can easily imagine a world where it was only consistent 98% of the time and only applied to 97% of the universe. As long as the laws usually held surely such a universe would contain at least a few confused observers.

    Modern physics experiments in our universe have shown that the laws are valid all the time and at mind boggling resolution at least every where we have been able to look so far.

    I see no reason why given Atheist presuppositions that we don’t see more spontaneous combustions or meteorite strikes for example. I see nothing that would prevent an occasional levitation at random times or places given slightly less rigid natural law.

    Sudden infant death happens at times in our world but not why not sudden adolescent death or sudden withering of random body parts from time to time?

    Those who would deny the existence of a completely trustworthy origin of the laws need to explain why the laws just happen to be so darn trustworthy.

    Does that help?

    peace

    Not at all. Laws have to be lawlike, you know? Even statistical ones. If it’s a law that in 99.999999% of the time, when X happens, y happens, then in 99.999999% of the cases, that’s the way it has to work. Otherwise, no law.

    Fifth, do you really not see that whatever happens, doesn’t happen, this means, that means–to you it’s all evidence for your pet beliefs? Every single thing.

    You say things like, “Oh, yes, my views could be falsified: I’m no Fred. All that has to happen is that there be no such thing as truth or hell freeze over in hot weather.” What you don’t get is that all your insistence that if anything is the case there must be a Christian God is question begging.

    I know I’m saying that your life is like that of a Camus character, that your patient, endless study of Hebrew, Cyrillic letters, etc. has been Sisyphean in the highest degree. And that’s awfully harsh: but that’s what I believe. Like Charlie’s reading Steiner on lamb’s bladders before bed, it’s good in that it gives you comfort and I don’t begrudge you that. But your belief that it’s also sensible is (I’m sorry to say) not defensible at all–in spite of your many many posts. It doesn’t get better, just longer.

  37. fifthmonarchyman: We expect natural law to be completely consistent and universal.

    Why should we expect that?

    Yet I can easily imagine a world where it was only consistent 98% of the time and only applied to 97% of the universe.

    So proof by exotic imagination?

    Modern physics experiments in our universe have shown that the laws are valid all the time and at mind boggling resolution at least every where we have been able to look so far.

    There’s nothing mind boggling about it.

    The laws are idealizations. There’s a thing about idealizations, that we can make them perfect, so that there could never any violations, at least until we decide that a different idealization would be more useful.

    Those who would deny the existence of a completely trustworthy origin of the laws need to explain why the laws just happen to be so darn trustworthy.

    Scientific laws are human constructs. Humans invent concepts and laws to allow us to better describe nature. And it turns out that we can invent the concepts and laws in such a way that many of those laws are necessary truths (analytic statements). Newton taught us how to do that, in order to be better able to use mathematics in our science.

  38. Neil Rickert: Why should we expect that?

    So proof by exotic imagination?

    There’s nothing mind boggling about it.

    The laws are idealizations.There’s a thing about idealizations, that we can make them perfect, so that there could never any violations, at least until we decide that a different idealization would be more useful.

    Scientific laws are human constructs.Humans invent concepts and laws to allow us to better describe nature.And it turns out that we can invent the concepts and laws in such a way that many of those laws are necessary truths (analytic statements).Newton taught us how to do that, in order to be better able to use mathematics in our science.

    Neil, I think what I said to FMM could also be said to you:

    Do you really not see that whatever happens, doesn’t happen, this means, that means–to you it’s all evidence for your pet beliefs? Every single thing.

    If it’s all “just us” then one law is as good as another. But, of course, they’re not.

  40. fifthmonarchyman: Let me try and unpack it for you. We expect natural law to be completely consistent and universal. Yet I can easily imagine a world where it was only consistent 98% of the time and only applied to 97% of the universe. As long as the laws usually held surely such a universe would contain at least a few confused observers.

    I guess it depends on how you view natural law, whether it is prescriptive or descriptive.

    Modern physics experiments in our universe have shown that the laws are valid all the time and at mind boggling resolution at least every where we have been able to look so far.

    Dark matter and dark energy seem to refute your feeling.

    I see no reason why given Atheist presuppositions that we don’t see more spontaneous combustions or meteorite strikes for example

    Is the lack of a presupposition a presupposition? Using your reasoning there is no reason that we don’t see fewer, or the amount we see is actually more than we should see. Without a baseline, fewer or more seems meaningless.

    . I see nothing that would prevent an occasional levitation at random times or places given slightly less rigid natural law.

    Again or not

    Sudden infant death happens at times in our world but not why not sudden adolescent death or sudden withering of random body parts from time to time?

    Why isn’t SIDS evidence that the laws of nature are being broken? Maybe the law of nature is body parts wither, and what we are seeing is irregularities

    Those who would deny the existence of a completely trustworthy origin of the laws need to explain why the laws just happen to be so darn trustworthy.

    We don’t know what the origin is. What we observe has often been untrustworthy and changes. The orbits of the planets.

    Does that help?

  41. John Harshman writes, regarding the “solar miracle” at Fatima:

    Note that the witnesses vary radically in what they claim to have seen. This does not inspire confidence. That a bunch of people primed for a miracle see a miracle is not surprising. That they see different miracles is likewise not surprising. That they then attempt to reassure each other to get their stories straight isn’t surprising either. Why are you taking this seriously?

    There are considerable variations in the witnesses’s accounts. But let’s not forget that the “solar miracle” was seen more than 10 kilometers away, as well as by sailors on a passing ship, who knew nothing about Fatima. That points to an objective phenomenon of some sort. Also, witnesses’ accounts often vary, even for everyday events such as car crashes. It’s hardly surprising that for supernatural events, there would be even more variability.

    Acartia writes:

    Let me get this straight. People in Portugal are told to expect a solar phenomenon of biblical nature. Subsequently, thousands of devout Catholics stare at the sun and, surprisingly, experience some visual experience. Some of which sound remarkably like the afterimages we all see when we stare at a bright light.

    Or, it could just be the northern lights.

    The people who came to Fatima to see the miracle included not only Catholics but also atheists and agnostics, as well as Catholic priests who were openly skeptical of the visions. Also, if it was an afterimage, why did no-one report optical damage afterwards? (By contrast, many people who have gone to Medjugorje have suffered such damage to their eyes.) And why was the event seen by sailors?

    The northern lights are seldom seen in Portugal.

    Woodbine writes:

    …[A]sk a bunch of psychologically primed and expectant Catholics to stare at the sun for a period of time and I’d be amazed if most of them didn’t report some kind of Marian inflected vision.

    See above. It wasn’t just Catholics, but also Protestants, agnostics and atheists (including Avalino Almeida, the agnostic reporter writing for O Seculo) – and of course, passing sailors.

    Regarding St. Paul’s claim that 500 people saw the risen Jesus at one time, timothya writes:

    Which is more likely:
    1. That the gospel writers would fail to mention a most convincing piece of evidence for the resurrection when it, in fact, happened; or
    2. That it didn’t happen and Paul (or more likely, a later Christian partisan) made it up?

    One of the Gospel writers probably did mention this piece of evidence: namely, the author of Matthew’s gospel. See this article by Keith Thompson, here, which makes an excellent case for the historicity of the event described by St. Paul. Thompson also rebuts charges that St. Paul or one of his followers made up the event: as he points out, the account is very old, going back to about 37 A.D.

    Regarding the laws of Nature, walto writes, “Laws have to be lawlike, you know? Even statistical ones,” while Neil Rickert writes, “Scientific laws are human constructs.” I think the Fatima skeptics need to get their story straight.

    A more fundamental question is: what makes a law of Nature a law, and not a mere regularity?

  42. vjtorley,

    Vincent,

    I’m still curious as to how, given for argument’s sake the events occurred as described, to attribute the cause to a deity. What’s the connection?

  43. timothya: You and I may not be able to make it up, but FFM and Sal (the demonic UFO man) and VJT (the avatar of credulity) have no trouble finding a ghost in any machine available. This thread has produced an amazing quantity of tripe from our religiously inclined correspondents.

    Hey, what about me!

  44. fifthmonarchyman: Let me try and unpack it for you. We expect natural law to be completely consistent and universal. Yet I can easily imagine a world where it was only consistent 98% of the time and only applied to 97% of the universe. As long as the laws usually held surely such a universe would contain at least a few confused observers.

    Did the laws hold during the incarnation? If so, show how. If not, how does this agree with what you say about the laws being completely consistent and universal?

    Modern physics experiments in our universe have shown that the laws are valid all the time and at mind boggling resolution at least every where we have been able to look so far.

    OK, why is it great that entropy always increases and we die?

    I see no reason why given Atheist presuppositions that we don’t see more spontaneous combustions or meteorite strikes for example.

    More spontaneous combustions? How many do we see now?

    Would one more meteorite strike than we see now demonstrate the “truth” of atheism? Did the Late Heavy Bombardment violate theistic assumptions? Did theism become true as meteorite strikes diminished following the Late Heavy Bombardment?

    I see nothing that would prevent an occasional levitation at random times or places given slightly less rigid natural law.

    Yes, you don’t seem to have a problem with violations under theism either. So apparently laws are evidence of God and violations of “natural law” are too. How convenient, and expected.

    Sudden infant death happens at times in our world but not why not sudden adolescent death or sudden withering of random body parts from time to time?

    They don’t happen?

    Those who would deny the existence of a completely trustworthy origin of the laws need to explain why the laws just happen to be so darn trustworthy.

    While you fail to explain why both inviolable laws and violations of those laws co-exist, contrary to logic?

    Does that help?

    Why, no. Unless you’re asking if your “God if law holds, God if law doesn’t hold” reveals the inconsistent logic of your theism.

    Glen Davidson

  48. VJT: “The people who came to Fatima to see the miracle included not only Catholics but also atheists and agnostics, as well as Catholic priests who were openly skeptical of the visions.”

    Forgive me if I am skeptical that there were many atheists and agnostics who would travel to see a religious prophesy.

    “Also, if it was an afterimage, why did no-one report optical damage afterwards?”

    How do we know that they didn’t? Was this specifically asked?

    “And why was the event seen by sailors?”

    Don’t know.

    “The northern lights are seldom seen in Portugal.

    And most volcanoes seldom erupt.

    “Thompson also rebuts charges that St. Paul or one of his followers made up the event: as he points out, the account is very old, going back to about 37 A.D.”

    Which would carry more weight?
    1) one person says that he saw Jesus rise from the grave.
    2) one person says that 500 people saw Jesus rise from the grave.
    3) one person says that 70,000 people saw Jesus rise from the grave.

    I will give you a hint. The most important aspect of all of these claims is the “one person”.

    “A more fundamental question is: what makes a law of Nature a law, and not a mere regularity?”

    The degree of regularity. Whether something is a law or not is a completely man-made distinction.

  49. newton: I guess it depends on how you view natural law, whether it is prescriptive or descriptive.

    Dark matter and dark energy seem to refute your feeling.

    Is the lack of a presupposition a presupposition? Using your reasoning there is no reason that we don’t see fewer, or the amount we see is actually more than we should see. Without a baseline, fewer or more seems meaningless.

    Again or not

    Why isn’t SIDS evidence that the laws of nature are being broken? Maybe the law of nature is body parts wither, and what we are seeing is irregularities

    We don’t know what the origin is. What we observe has often been untrustworthy and changes. The orbits of the planets.

    Does that help?

    GlenDavidson: Did the laws hold during the incarnation?If so, show how.If not, how does this agree with what you say about the laws being completely consistent and universal?

    OK, why is it great that entropy always increases and we die?

    More spontaneous combustions?How many do we see now?

    Would one more meteorite strike than we see now demonstrate the “truth” of atheism?Did the Late Heavy Bombardment violate theistic assumptions?Did theism become true as meteorite strikes diminished following the Late Heavy Bombardment?

    Yes, you don’t seem to have a problem with violations under theism either.So apparently laws are evidence of God and violations of “natural law” are too.How convenient, and expected.

    They don’t happen?

    While you fail to explain why both inviolable laws and violations of those laws co-exist, contrary to logic?

    Why, no.Unless you’re asking if your “God if law holds, God if law doesn’t hold” reveals the inconsistent logic of your theism.

    Glen Davidson

    Great posts, both.

Leave a Reply