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.
Methinks it looks like a weasel.
fifth, quoting 2 Corinthians:
“We destroy arguments”? LOL.
fifth,
If an omnipotent God were actually on your side, you wouldn’t be getting your ass handed to you again and again at TSZ.
How do you explain your lack of success? Why does God permit you to fail again and again?
keiths:
fifth:
Thus validating the dog analogy. You actually think that appealing to revelation solves the problem.
D’oh.
God is definitely not on your side, keiths…
I have not noticed any to explain at least when it comes to this stuff,
Actually, I think that what looks to you like failure is really something quite different.
But what do I know I’m just a lil ole tar-baby?
peace
Of course it does, It halts the endless regress cold. Full stop.
There is nothing beyond or in back of revelation. That is why it can serve as justification for knowledge on it’s own.
That self-confirming quality is after all exactly what we are looking for.
It’s the only thing that I’m aware of that actually solves the problem.
peace
I simply don’t think that the rules of the game that you insist upon playing are anywhere near to the correct way of thinking about the nature of knowledge and how it is possible. That’s why I don’t answer the questions you insist upon: because you are not asking the right questions.
Is that just your opinion or do you know it?
If you know it how do you know it ?
If it’s just your opinion why should I care?
Sound familiar?
Peace
who would of thunk that all it takes to destroy an argument is four little words
“How do you know?”
peace
Time for bed.
I want to apologize for having a little too much fun with you all tonight. I did not mean to come off as arrogant or flippant.
I know that there but for the Grace of God go I.
I should dial it back a little.
I just got a little carried away because you make it so easy sometimes.
peace
Moved some posts to guano.
Familiar, tiresome, boring, and stupid.
Opinion and knowledge are not the only options, “how do you know?” is not always the right question to ask, and knowledge neither has not needs foundations in order to be distinguished from opinion.
Try reading a book other than the Bible or Christian apologetics. There is much you do not understand and I don’t have the time or patience to teach it to you. You need to do the work of trying to understand these issues for yourself.
I’m not going to engage with you further. I don’t think you’re capable of arguing in good faith or that you have any intellectual integrity.
Really, do you know that or is it just an opinion?
How do you know that?
or is it just your opinion?
peace
First of all I’m not arguing. I thought we established that long ago.
Secondly if you have any specific examples of me not holding myself to the same standards that I ask of you or of not being true to my own thinking, I would be eternally grateful if you would share them.
Intellectual integrity is very important to me and I know that sometimes it’s easier for others to see our failings than to see them ourselves
peace
On that point I think we could all agree.
There is always more to learn even when you are a Professor.
peace
keiths:
fifth:
No. Wherever you try to stop the regress, you end up with the same question for which you have no answer:
Your belief system rests on a freshman logic mistake, fifth.
That you keep asking the question over and over even though I offer exactly the same answer is not a problem for me it’s a problem for you.
Keiths: Are we there yet?
FMM: no
Keiths:Are we there yet?
FMM: no
Keiths:Are we there yet?
FMM: no
Is that not what you’d expect me to say? No regress just the same answer to the same question
i don’t know whether to ask how you know this or demand that you give evidence for your claim or retract it.
So I’ll just ask for clarification.
Since is when is answering the same question with the same answer a problem or a mistake?
It sounds like the logical thing to do.
It would be illogical to give a different answer to exactly the same question would it not?
peace
fifth,
First you said that revelation terminates the regress. Now you say it doesn’t.
That dog ain’t never gonna understand calculus. Or the importance of non-contradiction.
He’s contradicted himself a million times before. And doesn’t even notice after being pointed out to him!
And he still thinks he’s owning everyone else here. LOL
FMM is up there with JoeG, Edgar Postrado and Gary Gaulin among the most delusional and dumbest creos of all time
Why would you even need to verify revelation and if you did why does it make sense to verify it with the thing you are verifying in the first place?
Of course it terminates the regress.
That is why I offer the same answer to the same question.
No contradiction there.
That you foolishly continue to ask the same question even after you get the answer is not a regress it’s an encore.
peace
Why not?
If you think your elderly mother revealed to you that she would like a Lolo album for her birthday it would be a good idea to verify that it was actual revelation and not a misunderstanding on your part.
How else would you very that your mother wanted a Lolo album except to look for more revelation from her?
Confirmatory revelation is not something spooky or mysterious it’s simply the way you verify that you have genuine knowledge in your everyday interpersonal relations.
peace
And there’s the unearned claim of victory, as predicted.
This demonstrates a misconception similar to your mistaken belief that your thinking on epistemology is “deep”.
The evidence does not support that claim.
I started to respond then had to finish in Noyau.
For instance?
Also, how is Confirmatory revelation itself verified? And why can’t we have a combination of Confirmatory revelation and revelation in the first instance so Confirmatory revelation is not needed at all?
;P
Baby steps
Impressive how you confirm your own beliefs.
It must be very satisfying for you to confirm what you have affirmed.
However, this is a common move among people, and what is “revealed” to them confirms their beliefs and not yours. Meaning that we do not consider the “revelations” that people have had to reveal any meaningful truth to the rest of us. We stick with the evidence that has meaningful confirmation, and the mere fact that we “don’t know” because it doesn’t match what has been “revealed” to you is certainly of no consequence.
Glen Davidson
You missed some.
Being extremely confused, you’re really not in a position to judge.
Nope. Failure, plain and simple.
This is a great example of using fancy words like “revelation” to make it sound like completely natural activities like “finding out” are special, supernatural. The whole argument (and it IS an argument) works like that. Sure we need to find out things from Granny. Nothing follows.
The equivocations regarding “revelation” are central, Newton. Can’t just be dumped. Has to be fish and fowl too. Nothing special–like finding out what granny means, but also Yippee-AI-Yo-Ki-YAY! The foundation of all knowledge! What could be both at the same time, besides….uh….guess!
Glen is right, of course, that one keeps on with this nonsense to show that one’s silence is anything but acquiescence. FMM may not have sense, but he has stamina, and we don’t like to make that characteristic more important than it ought to be.
But for 2017, I’m resolving to opt out and I want it to be crystal clear that the reason is not agreement. Fifth’s arguments seem dumber to me every day.
(And please, Fifth, no “I’m really sorry to have this often fruitful conversation curtailed, but I understand if you feel you must” post. As we all know, that’s just another come-on. Thanks in advance for just going on with others if YOU feel you must.)
Only grandma knows the secret ingredient, and she’s not revealing it. 😉
newton,
Ok
your elderly grandmother writes you and tells you that she would like a Lolo album for her birthday. You are concerned that perhaps you misunderstand her.
Then you open Facebook to find a new selfie of Memaw wearing a Lolo Tee-shirt while getting a skull tattoo. ——–revelation confirmed
peace
In the end revelation is just revelation.
We can if we like separate into different lumps depending on how we received it or how we utilize it.
But it’s all revelation
peace
I’m not sure I get you. Are you saying that your friends or family have never revealed anything to you?
That is sad
peace
I mean that they don’t equivocate like you do.
Glen Davidson
Finding out is what we do revealing is what the person with the information does. there is nothing mysterious about revelation but it is rather special.
If we want to know something from Granny the information must be revealed to us, I would not call that nothing
peace
you need to explain the equivocation. Revelation is simply the act or product of revealing.
reveal–make (previously unknown or secret information) known to others.
from here https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reveal
It’s all pretty strait forward.
I realize that as an atheist you are allergic to the idea that God could be a person just like Grandma that reveals stuff to us.
That is not a problem with the terminology it’s a problem with your delicate sensibilities
peace
Revelation:
Through our outer senses the external world is revealed to us as a multiplicity.
Thinking becomes the inner sense through which reality reveals itself to us as a unity.
Perhaps that is because I’m not making any arguments 😉
peace
No, not a example, your experience
What are you doing,fifth?
Just guessing here, but you live in one of those states where weed is legal, doncha’?
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Neither is fifth
How about this walto, just don’t bring the subject up again and I won’t remind you of what we all know.
There are a lot of other things we can talk about.
peace