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.
It’s not a matter of certainty, it’s that you a) consider revelation the only source of knowledge and b) admit that you can be wrong about a belief being an actual revelation. You could be wrong about every single belief you think is a revelation.
Sorry, fifth, you’re self-admittedly too flawed a vessel for your god to fill.
You keep repeating this baseless assertion. You should try supporting it.
Then why the necessity of God as justification?
recall the skeptic thread that I hosted? The question was what would convince you that you were mistaken. Very few atheists were able to list even one thing.
I wonder what evidence would convince you that you were wrong in this regard?
Granting this is correct for the sake of argument. What does the one thing have to do with the other?
peace
That’s a worthy aim. Not sure it’s working. 🙂
OK
What connection is there between the ID movement and “artificial intelligence”? What do refer to as “other minds”?
It would do no harm to give it a try here, then.
There is no such necessity. I would be satisfied with any justification for knowledge you could come up with.
What do you got?
peace
First you have to get a stick then work out how to sharpen it.
I’m skeptical that hypothetical questions can be usefully answered. What was the thread called? Can you link to an example?
What usually convinces me I’m wrong about something is evidence to the contrary.
It’s an example of the “pots and kettles” stance that you invariably adopt.
It’s this kind of comment that is very frustrating to me. It’s like you aren’t even paying attention. Take a look at the OP’s Ive authored if you are unable to see the obvious connection.
geeze
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds
peace
Nonsense. You constantly assert your “presuppositions” and are never willing to support them in any way. You never subject them to serious risk of disconfirmation.
When you provide an operational definition of this god thing you keep babbling on about, I might be able to answer that question.
None of your comments here show any interest in, or even ability to, examine your priors objectively. You can’t even be polite enough to accept others’ clearly stated positions.
Try leaving all your presuppositions at the door, including that offensive belief that you know what others think better than they do. Thus far I haven’t seen any indication that you can do so.
No, you do not. If you did you wouldn’t be so rude.
Thus far I have seen no evidence of that. You simply repeat what you were indoctrinated with as a child. There has been no change in your views and no real examination of them on your part.
Like people who “presuppose” everything they want to believe and pretend that insulates them from having to support their claims?
Damn right I don’t see the connection. If ID proponents were seriously pursuing a theory of artificial intelligence, I might find that commendable.
Of course. You think you could be mistaken you just can’t think of any possible thing that would convince you that you are mistaken ………..right
peace
Damn right I don’t see the connection. If ID proponents were seriously pursuing a theory of artificial intelligence, I might find that commendable.
And what has the alleged “problem of other minds” to do with “Intelligent Design”?
Oops excuse double post
Of course you don’t that is because you are unable to park your priors. You think that this is all about culture war and you are on the side of the angels.
It’s the narrative you tell yourself that determines what you are able to see.
peace
Not quite. I can’t know with any certainty how I would react in a hypothetical situation. Some are easy. There’s a big red button in front of me and if I press it Donald Trump will immediately disappear. Should I press the button?
Nope. Please try and actually read what I write. I am saying I see no connection between the “ID” movement and the field of artificial intelligence. You could presumably refute that by pointing me to evidence for that connection.
Geez
How would developing a way to identify the products of minds possible be relevant to the problem of other minds?
peace
I think that “how do you know what you know?” is much less clear as a question than it seems.
It could mean, “what justifies knowledge?” or “what are the criteria of truth and of justification?” or “how is knowledge possible?” or “what distinguishes knowledge from opinion?” or “what explains our ability to know?”
But nothing is gained from conflating very different questions that require different methods of investigation.
Can you never answer a simple question?
Perhaps one gains the realisation that one is conflating!
What sort of evidence do you need to see what is so obvious?
If an AI could design it would have demonstrated that it is actually intelligent.
peace
The question is the answer.
If you would just take a second to reflect on what you write you already know the connection between ID and the problem of other minds.
peace
You should consider the possibility that you are communicating poorly, instead of jumping to the conclusion that others are not paying attention.
You are utterly incorrigible. And if you think about it for one second you are also making an accusation of dishonesty. Let me repeat!
There is no connection that I can see between the “Intelligent Design” movement and the field of artificial intelligence.
I hereby certify that his my true and honest opinion.
Is that clear enough for you?
I think you have a tendency to see ambiguity unnecessarily.
Each of these are just different ways of getting at the very same nugget.
If you think you need to use a different method of investigation to tell me how you know stuff feel free.
Just answer the question or acknowledge that you don’t know.
peace
Is the knowledge that God is not a necessity the result of revelation?
FMM, your lack of self-awareness is breathtaking. Have you ever seriously (I don’t know why I’m bothering to ask) asked yourself, having uttered one of your assertions, asked yourself “how do I know that”?
fifthmonarchyman,
If you can’t see how those are very different questions and not “different ways of getting at the very same nugget” then we will need to have a different conversation then the one we have been having thus far!
Oh, the circularity!
It is,
I find it sad that you are unable to see something so obvious.
I find it very telling that you added the qualifier “movement” to Intelligent Design.
Why would you feel the need to do that?
Is it to remind yourself that ID is simply a political movement that must be stopped at all costs instead of an interesting question that might warrant scientific exploration?
peace
Why not just pick one you like and answer the question?
If it is way off the mark then we can back up and reappraise
peace
yes!!!!!
The answer is revelation!!!!!!
That is the point after all
peace
The question was what would convince you that God exists , if I recall. Not what would convince you that you were mistaken.
Not sad enough to try and explain yourself, apparently.
What word would you prefer? Community? Organisation? Group?
I mentioned Donald Trump already. The ID movement is an irrelevancy now.
I suppose that’s the unanswerable answer to the unquestionable question.
I would prefer that you avoid the us verses them thinking all together and instead focus on the idea.
I guess that ship has sailed in your case
peace
Ah the idea! When I was both able and inclined to comment at Uncommon Descent, I regularly asked for some detail about the “idea” of “Intelligent Design”. Was there an agreed statement, setting out ID theory? I’m still curious. What idea is there in ID?
What don’t you understand???
Please be specific as to how you can’t see any connection between
Intelligent design and artificial intelligence
despite the fact that the noun clauses are 50% identical.
peace
Here is what I wrote:
There is no connection that I can see between the “Intelligent Design” movement and the field of artificial intelligence.
No idea how to be more specific than “NO CONNECTION”
I could try repetition or many exclamation marks!!!!!!!
In this instance I’m referring idea that perhaps the design inference can be made more rigorous and less subjective.
You sound bitter. Perhaps that is why you see this as an us verses them thing.
Bye the way I would not expect to find a definitive answer to anything on an internet blog.
peace
No it’s the only answer I’m aware of to the question “how do you know stuff?” that is not itself subject to regress.
peace
I’ve no problem with that. Do you think you are helping?
Currently I’m experiencing a mixture of frustration and resignation with you.
See what as a thing? Your vagueness is astonishing.
I’ll wait for revelation!!!!!!!!! shall I?
Perhaps you could explain how you don’t find any connection between the terms
intelligent and intelligence.
That might be a good place to start
peace
That I do believe!
I’m glad neither do I. I find it to be a worthwhile goal.
I’m doing my best. Are you aware of my game?
Intelligent design
You could wait or you could investigate yourself. I would suggest you do it in places other than internet blogs
peace
Perhaps you could just once read what I write. I have no problem with “intelligence” as a comparative property applied to, say, humans or rats or robots. I can happily consider the question, how intelligent is that entity. The question “but is it intelligent” however is meaningless. That is because there is no meaningful definition of “intelligence”.
But we were discussing the idea of “Intelligent Design”. What is the core idea of ID?
I would love to discover I’m wrong if that is the case
Do you have another answer to the question “how do you know stuff?” That you would like to share?
peace
No. Of course not. Typical FMM intentional mischaracterization.
We use the term all the time in everyday conversation and get along just fine.
How do you think we are able to negotiate the utter meaninglessness of the term in those instances?
I’m not sure there is a core idea any more than there is a core idea of evolution.
The main claim of the theory is that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
peace
I strongly doubt that.
I’ve already said, more than once, that the only way to know anything of this World is through our sensory inputs. Look, listen, touch, and learn!
OK then what are you saying?
Revelation is just as likely as any possible way to know stuff.
That is because God is omnipotent. Don’t you agree?
peace