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.
I know by revelation
See how easy that was?
You verify revelation by revelation.
The regress stops cold at revelation there is nothing beyond or behind it.
peace
How do you know THAT?
But how do you know THAT?
As I said, the ‘argument’ of a five-year old.
Again you accuse me of making an argument . Even after I specifically and repeatedly say I’m not.
Why are you calling me a liar? Don’t you think that is rude?
peace
Of course it’s an argument. That it’s bad doesn’t mean it’s not an argument.
And I’m not calling you a liar; i’m calling you confused. (and you’ve even taken that like a five-year-old).
Confused about what?
I’m pretty clear on the idea that you don’t know how you know stuff.
And I’m pretty clear that you have not shown that knowledge is possible with out God.
That is pretty much all that has been at issue in this discussion. What am I missing?
Recall that in this very thread you called me rude because you thought I was calling you a liar when I was only calling you confused.
What does that tell you?
peace
Your logical fallacy today is argumentum ad hitlerum
I’ve been just dipping in and out since Friday. I see that Neil has been handling the cleanup during that time. If there are any comments he missed that you believe violate the rules, please post a link in Moderation Issues.
You have yet to support your claim that your god is necessary for knowledge. The burden of proof remains on you — your beliefs are not the default.
You have not shown how your god is necessary for humans to have knowledge. Make your case before demanding that others refute it.
No, you simply assert it without evidence or reason. Repeatedly.
So you see Flint, axioms are open to debate and interpretation.
I thought I’d try to give the mods a break, let them enjoy their Christmas too. 🙂
Hope everyone is with their loved ones. Cheers!
At least as I read it, walto was commenting on the post. He was not commenting on the poster. So he was not calling you a liar.
You are even confused about what you are confused about.
God is the one who shows you that not me.
All I can do is remind you of the fact.
Again it’s not an argument and it’s not a case.
It’s much better because it’s revelation.
If it was merely an argument it could perhaps be defeated by another argument.
Since it’s revelation it stands on it’s own and carries with it it’s own confirmation.
peace
no, I presuppose it.
I do so because it’s the only thing I’m aware of that can justify any knowledge whatsoever.
Do you know of anything else that will do the trick?
peace
I am.
They are teasing me that I keep jumping on the computer.
I told them that there is noting more fun than playing with a bunch of atheists 😉
Peace
We should start an atheist fantasy league. 🙂
At no point thus far have you shown that revelation can justify any knowledge at all.
And I don’t see how you can do that without breaking your own rule: that you’re not making an argument.
Maybe to you it seems that revelation can justify knowledge, but you haven’t shown that to us. But justification involves reasoning, and reasoning is just what is open to all. Reasoning that is exclusive only to you and can’t even be expressed is indistinguishable from delusion.
(And I know that because I understand how to use the word “justification”.)
He’ll learn, he’ll learn.
Well, no.
Glen Davidson
Do you think it’s possible for an omnipotent God to reveal things to me in such a way so that I can know them?
If not why not?
Keep in mind that being omnipotent means that if it can be done at all God can do it.
Perhaps you should hang around and see. 😉
What do you call the act of making (previously unknown or secret information) known to others?
peace
Of course. It’s possible that you have aircraft carriers daily fly out of your nose, too.
But, alas, my toddling friend…..
Mung, Happy Christmas to you too.
Wow
It’s been a productive couple of days, we now have established
1) You know stuff
2) You don’t have of any justification for knowledge with out God (ie you don’t know how you know stuff)
and
3) God’s revelation can serve as a justification for knowledge (ie there is nothing logically preventing it)
We have done this all with out me offering an argument but simply by reflecting on what you already know.
What else do you need?
peace
Are you saying that any knowledge whatsoever is only as likely as aircraft carriers daily flying out of my nose?
peace
Patrick,
Is insulting someone within the rules, as long as it is prefaced with the words “I just feel you are…”?
Because that is the excuses Alan used for allowing Glen to insult FMM’s intelligence. I then used the exact same wording to insult back, and of course Neil only thought he would delete MY post, knowing full well he allowed Gregory amongst others to do the same. In fact, being able to insult ones intelligence here is standard fare. But conveniently it always falls in one direction when the moderators say, “Oh, well I didn’t see that one, but I am going to delete any theist posts which responds in kind.”
So, I don’t think its necessary for me to point out where the rules have been broken, because the moderators wear atheist colored glasses. You know full well, Alan knows full well, Neil knows full well the convenience of your bias.
I laughed that someone claimed johnnyb is a moderator here. That’s funny. Is there any empirical evidence that johnnyb exists? I am sure there is much more evidence for a creator God then there is evidence that a theist named johnnyb is a moderator here.
But I can appreciate the joke.
Know them with complete certainty? No
You would need to be omniscient.
Gregory is a theist,phoo. Your post is not deleted .
newton,
I meant Glen.
Moved is the same as deleted, when its applied based on sharing the worldview as the moderators.
Its not possible to have meaningful discussion when some are allowed to continue to use childish insults, and when the insulted responds, they are told their behavior is the inappropriate one.
Lizzie never wanted real discussion anyway, she wants atheist propaganda, just like all good skeptics. Its called guerilla skepticism, a strategy skeptics know quite well.
Who are the most caustic posters here? The skeptics of course, by a long shot.
That’s an implicit insult of Elizabeth. Please keep to the rules.
phoodoo,
Moved is not the same as deleted. What a Moronic thing to say.
Neil Rickert,
Phoodoo’s history of motive-mongering is long, has blown up in his face before yet he is unable to learn from it.
Neil Rickert,
Its what I feel, and Alan says that’s within the rules.
But there is also empirical, undeniable evidence that you have a double standard for how the rules are applied Neil, so it doesn’t matter whatever so called rules exist anyway Neils, now does it?
Are implicit insults against the rules now Neil? Because I could go back and show you a few examples you missed.
Richardthughes,
That was just the platypus pelt smacking you in your face again Richard.
For some that would be an implicit insult, but for you its an implicit compliment. It means you have become smart enough to perform a comic routine for your mother.
It is not the same in the sense of erase no matter why it is done. Your post exists in all its grandeur on the site.
Then don’t use them yourself and make the problem worse. Sticks and stones.
It would depend how the ” insulted party ” freely chose to respond. If the party choose to use childish insults , not to move his post would be special treatment.
If you mean to insult someone and fail miserably is it still against the rules?
newton,
Even this concept is hard for you to understand?
You have rules. You either apply the rules the same to everyone, or you don’t apply the rules at all. BUT applying the rules to one side, whilst not applying them to the other equally, EVEN WHEN IT IS THE EXACT SAME POST!, that is not moderation, that is censorship. That is guerilla skepticism in action.
Lizzie was banned from UD because she could not follow the rules there. She claimed that the rules weren’t applied to her fairly. Well, I can prove beyond any doubt that the rules are not applied equally here. So Alan moaning that people insult behind Barry’s skirt is pretty amusing, when Lizzie has an entire Victorian dress complete with hoops in which to provide cover for her troop of loyal skeptics.
newton,
Well, take Richardhughes for an example. He has a long history of attempting to insult, and having it blow up in his face spectacularly. Think of all the times when he runs away crying for the moderators to help him, because some people have been mean to him, after he trolled them.
Well, what does this accomplish. Richard still looks like the fool as always, but then he also exposes the foolishness of the moderators and the site as a whole as well. Richard crying to Neil, Neil being a good syncophant for the Dictator, the whole thing just gets ugly in a hurry.
When your whole team is a bunch of whining crying babies looking for a giant dress, look where you end up. You know what I mean Newton. Yes, you know what I mean.
Feel free to provide examples of me crying to moderators, Phoodoo. If you want to take a break from crying to moderators.
You are taking it out of context.
Some ways of expressing one’s opinion are generally not see as insulting. Other ways of expressing the same opinion are seen as insulting. Stick to ways that are not generally seen as insulting. And try to avoid testing the boundaries.
Neil Rickert,
How was what Alan said taken out of context?
phoodoo, to newton:
When has he done that? Links, please.
keiths,
That’s an implicit claim that I am lying, when you know full well how many times Richards attempts at saying anything clever has blown up in his face spectacularly. So that is against the rules keiths, and you as much as anyone should know that, because you follow the rules so closely.
So please try to follow the site rules, is that too much to ask Keiths? Let Richard make a fool of himself by himself if that is what he chooses.. You don’t have to follow along with him. Why do you all find it so hard to just follow a few very simple rules? I mean Richard obviously can’t even read the rules, even if he wanted to, but you can read them, right?
Off-topic
I’m back! Hope everyone had a good holiday. I see phoodoo has been enjoying my gift to him.
I’ll continue discussion on “I feel like…” in the moderation issues thread. Please post further comments regarding moderation there.
We don’t need a justification for knowledge any more than we need to know a language in order to know a language.
Knowledge is justified true belief (on the standard picture, which I have increasing doubts about). But since it is justified, it does not need any further justification.
Likewise, if one knows what “apple” means, then one doesn’t need anything else — the meaning of ‘apple’ — as something just floating around in the ether, waiting to be hooked up to words, minds, and apples. Knowing how to use the word ‘apple’ (in English) in appropriate circumstances is just all there is to grasping the meaning of ‘apple’.
The problems of epistemology similarly dissolve — or rather change quite profoundly — once one realizes that there is no need for a justification for knowledge.
To repeat: my point (already made many times already) is that knowledge does not need a foundation in order to be distinguished from opinion or preference.
I also think that we need to enrich our basic epistemic vocabulary here. Presumably a sufficient epistemology is going to have something to say about the following concepts: inference, warrant, evidence, explanation, understanding, justification, truth, ideology, superstition, dogma, and reasoning.
I think we have already established that certainty is not required for knowledge.
peace
That’s exactly the same thing. When you make a statement that is a claim about reality, calling it a presupposition changes nothing about the claim. Your statement remains a claim. The only thing calling it a presupposition means is that you are refusing to support that claim with evidence or reason.
You have yet to make the case that it can do so. Your claim remains unsupported.
Park your priors at the door. Think it possible that you may be mistaken. Assume others are commenting in good faith. You follow none of these guidelines. What is your goal in participating here?
Please note that I’m not suggesting you leave. I am suggesting that you align your behavior with the goals and rules of this site. As it stands now, you are an extremely discourteous guest.
This has been asked and answered repeatedly already. No, it is not possible, because you yourself admit that you might consider something a revelation when in fact it is not. You have admitted that it is logically possible that everything you think is revelation is not. You have no way of determining which of your beliefs are revelations and which are not, so it is not possible for even an omnipotent god to reveal something to you in such a way that you can be justified in your belief.
I realize that I’m often accused of repetition but it’s difficult not to do that when faced with comments like this one
Once again I’m not saying you need justification for knowledge in order to know stuff. You do know stuff that much is a given.
You just don’t know how you know stuff (at least that is what you claim).
On the other hand I do know that God’s revelation is the source of all knowledge.
How do you know that? Again this is very important.
In order for this discussion to be fruitful you need to think deeper about this than you apparently have up until this point.
I know this because you continue to make claims like this one.
peace
1) certainty is not required for knowledge
2) If God can not reveal stuff so that I can know it then knowledge is impossible.
That is because an omnipotent God can do anything that is possible.
Do you really want to assert that knowledge is impossible?
Use your head man
peace
Patrick, I would ask that you look in the mirror.
I’m one of the very few here who think it’s possible that I may be mistaken. You on the other hand are unable to give even one piece of evidence that would convince you that God exists.
The whole point of my questions is to get us to examine our examined priors. So far you have been unwilling to do that.
I on the other hand am willing to abandon any and every prior that is not absolutely necessary for knowledge
I definitely assume that others are posting in good faith. If I thought you were consciously lying about not knowing God exists I would not bother going to the trouble of trying to get you to think deeper about this stuff.
1) I enjoy sharpening my own thoughts
2) I enjoy thinking about the implications of scientific discoveries
3) I’m particularly interested in ID and it’s relationship to artificial intelligence and the problem of other minds
4) I enjoy poking folks who are a little too sure of themselves.
peace
How do manage to say that? I’ve seen nobody here make blithely unsupported assertions as often as you. Could this be another two? (1.You could be mistaken? 2. Others are never mistaken?)