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.
How do you know that?
Do you know it by looking and listening and touching?
This is important please think deeply
peace
FMM, you manage just fine making meaningless statements on a regular basis. Try and focus on what I wrote. “Intelligence” is a comparative property that is assessed often by ability in a particular task or field. There is no universal property called intelligence.
🙂
It’s a meaningless and negative platitude. Unless you are going to say what you mean by “intelligent cause”.
Because all the information I have about the World around me was acquired through my sensory inputs, of course.
Of course. Thinks deeply What other way of finding out about the World around you is there apart from that available via your sensory inputs?
It sounds like we need clarify what you mean by universal and comparative?
Is a comparative property only a property in certain parts of the universe?
peace
What I said (pretty clearly the first time) was that your point that it’s possible that God did this or that made no difference whatever to anything.
However, you enjoy both arguing (and denying that you’re doing it), and mischaracterization (and denying that you’re doing that), much more than learning anything.
ETA: NB: This post is an ad hominem. As I’ve pointed out many times, ad hominems are required for many types of valid arguments. For example, the claim that someone is biased or has a conflict of interest is ad hominem. That doesn’t make it an inappropriate form of argument. The rules here are bad, which, presumably, is ONE of the reasons that they are regularly ignored.
Any pictures?
I could devise a test for rats finding their way around a maze. Timing them would give (perhaps) a way to sort my rats’ intelligence by equating it to time taken. I’d struggle to use the same test to compare rat’s intelligence to that of dolphins. We can assess the comparative intelligence of rats using performance tests of some kind. There is no universal test of intelligence.
Why am I bothering?
phoodoo,
Take it to moderation issues.
It’s absolutely pointless. As RB eloquently put it,
“Whirr, click”
walto,
Take it to moderation issues, please!
Thank you walto!
Is knowledge a brute fact?
Your complaint, Patrick was that he gives no reason for his claim.
And then he gave you a reason.
I do so because it’s the only thing I’m aware of that can justify any knowledge whatsoever.
So you were wrong.
This is either untrue or an admission that no one here can provide an answer to fmm’s question. Which is it Patrick?
imo, the question fmm is asking is, how is knowledge possible or what makes knowledge possible.
Please address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster.
😉
I think this is actually a valid point and an interesting insight.
I think when we say that something is “intelligent” or “conscious” or “has a mind” what we really mean is that it thinks like us.
That is why I think that in the end “ID” proper can be thought of as simply a Turing Test for the source of the universe. However the same approach can work for a computer or a rat or dolphin
That was the idea behind the last couple of OPs I authored.
peace
Sure it makes a difference.
If God can reveal so that I can know then revelation can be a justification for knowledge.
It’s that simple
peace
That is part of it however there is more, for example::::
FMM: how is knowledge possible or what makes knowledge possible.
KN: Our status as a social species enables us to triangulate our sensual impressions with other individuals
FMM: How do you know that?
This line of questioning misses the point which is to discover the grounds for his knowledge. IOW “How does he know stuff?”
Does that make sense?
peace
To note: even if it is logically possible for God to reveal something to you in such a way that you can know it, it doesn’t follow that you are ever actually justified in any of your beliefs.
So if God revealed his existence to fmm, while it might be true that God exists, and that fmm believes God exists (by virtue of that revelation), fmm would not be justified in believing that God exists, so he would not have JTB knowledge of God’s existence.
So murky, lol.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#JusCon
Again I think you are confusing justification for individual beliefs and justification of knowledge in general.
If God can reveal things to me so that I can know them then knowledge is justified. That is what the discussion is about.
On the other hand my beliefs in individual Ps are justified only if God has in fact revealed them to me
peace
In case clarification is needed
When I say that knowledge is justified I mean something like this.
“I have good reason to think that knowledge is possible and in fact exists.”
Hope that helps
peace
That’s not correct. You’re not keeping track of the distinction between possibility and actuality.
If God can reveal things to you such that you can know them, then knowledge is justifiable.
Justifiable is not justified.
There are infinitely many things that are logically possible but which we have no good reason at all to think actually exist. There’s a huge leap in your thinking from “logically possible” to “actually existing”.
But wait.
Do I actually know that it’s possible that God can reveal things to me so that I can know them ? If so then knowledge is justified.
Not just justifiable but justified
That is true even if I don’t know how I know it.
peace
Do I actually know there is a huge leap between “logically possible” to “actually existing”? If so then knowledge is justified not justifiable but actually justified.
Get it?
peace
PS thank you so much for sticking with me and thinking through these issues. It would be so easy to simply get mad and ignore what I’m saying because it comes from a very different perspective from what you are used to.
You are to be commended for still being here
I doubt it. I think you’re guessing and hoping that it’s possible. But I don’t see how you could be sure.
Maybe it requires a soupçon of FAITH.
I would argue, that if you don’t know how you know something, then it is baseless, therefore unjustified, therefore it is a belief rather than knowledge.
Even if it is actually true.
I am basing this on the definition of knowledge as a justified true belief.
Remove the “justified”, and it is no longer knowledge.
What you are saying, essentially, is that if something pops into your head, and you believe it is possible that God put it there, then you are justified in believing it. That sounds quite irrational to me.
Sigh. Is this something you know? If so, do you know how you know it? If not, who cares.
People who can build on their knowledge, improving the lives of themselves and others, THEY care. Even if you won’t grant that they know anything.
I sense you are trying to use Munchhausen’s mire as a foxhole.
That won’t end well for you, the fox, or the hole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
So you don’t care whether you are rational or not?.
You should consider trying that yourself sometime–although spouting the same confusions over and over is, admittedly, much easier. And, of course, safer.
how do you know this?
peace
I see that you have no answer. And it was such a simple response to what you wrote that you should have anticipated it. sigh
once again certainty is not required for knowledge.
It’s responses like this that make repetition necessary
peace
So you find FMM’s argument sound? Unbelievable
It’s not an argument! It’s a “presupposition”.
Is food something you digest? If so do you digest how you digest it? If not, either you couldn’t be digesting it or God is digesting it for you.
Of course you know this is not is not a valid analogy.
There are lots of reasons, for one I am not claiming that if you don’t know how you know then God must be revealing stuff to you.
For another you are equating a mental thing (knowledge) with a physical process. Bacteria can digest food but we have no evidence that they “know” anything.
peace
Watching fifth wrestle with this issue is like watching the proverbial dog trying to learn calculus.
Huuh?
Yes, I have to admit that, even with all the repetition of errors, I can still get a little amusement out of it on occasion. I guess it’s a guilty pleasure.
If you are befuddled ask specific questions.
I can’t help you if you don’t use your words
peace
Yes I know
I’m just a stupid fundamentalist. Nothing to see here.
It’s especially important to belittle the poster instead of actually thinking about epistemology.
peace
Watching you try to answer simple questions is like watching Richard Hughes masturbate his platypus using silly putty.*
This is acceptable right moderators?
“No, no, you see, a platypus is semi-aquatic, so that of course would be against the rules,whereas a dog…”
And how do you know that knowledge is not a physical process?
Repeating stuff the fallaciousness of which has been pointed out to you literally hundreds of times is not ‘thinking about epistemology.’ It is parroting a catechism.
I could say revelation but in the spirit of civility I will grant for the sake of argument that I don’t know.
Do you have any evidence that knowledge is a physical process?
Or is this simply something you assume
Do you have any idea what such evidence would even look like?
peace