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.
If you sincerely believed an omniscient being was revealing the Truth to you, I can’t imagine any logic presented a finite being would be persuasive to dissuade you that an omniscient being was revealing the truth.
KN,
And a defense mechanism.
Fifth is not the brightest candle on the altar, obviously, as he himself has acknowledged. It’s therefore no surprise to us that his faith rests on an obvious fallacy.
It shouldn’t be a surprise to him, either. But for him to acknowledge that would be to knock out a central pillar of his identity. The cognitive dissonance would be unbearable.
No. KN intended “stone” as a small rock, whereas I decided to interpret it as the unit of weight (known as the “stone”) in the British system. I was just having a little fun.
newton:
Fifth, however, acknowledges that he is a finite and fallible being. Such a being can mistake a brain fart for an instance of divine revelation.
So even if God actually exists, and even if he is capable of revealing things to his creatures infallibly, it does not follow that what fifth takes to be an instance of divine revelation actually is is an instance of divine revelation.
It’s obvious, and so fifth can’t — or won’t — comprehend it. The dog can’t comprehend calculus, or maybe he just doesn’t want to.
Just a drive by.
Who in the world said that revelation was private thing?
It is by definition a social enterprise involving at least a reveler and recipient of the information.
When we talk about God’s revelation to an individual creature there are at 4 persons involved. The members of the Trinity and the recipient.
Agreed, God is a Trinity!!!!
Peace
Octaginity.
How can you possibly know this? Are you assuming some sort of radical atomism?
If so how do you know that your take is the correct one?
peace
I was always taught that one kilogram weighs 2.2 pounds. 😉
ETA: Ninja’d!
I have repeatedly said that all it would take to dissuade me is to show that knowledge was possible without God or that knowledge is not possible at all.
Do you think it is impossible for a finite being to demonstrate either of those things?
What would persuade you that you know things because God is revealing them to you?
peace
Since Newton’s comment in no way represents what I believe does that mean that my view is rational?
peace
Father, sister-in-law, second cousin, best friend, gramma, physical therapist, grocer, brother, daughter.
And, as is well-known, the ‘parable of the lunch lady’ has caused at least one sectarian group to claim nine. Others maintain the strictly unitarian nature of the Lord. This battle rages, just as it does in Christianity.
One kilogram has no weight because it has no mass.
exactly.
For once keiths has stumbled a relevant point. This is not about any individual belief I have.
It’s about knowledge and how it is justified
peace
Do you need a nap 😉
peace
fifth:
Which completely undermines your position. That you can’t, or won’t, see it is remarkable.
A. It’s actually quite close.
B. No, it wouldn’t mean that you were rational anyhow. Many available types of irrationality to choose from. Like my uncle’s and yours. Both crazy, but his a little less so.
You’re running out of time, Fifth.
If you think that is the case apparently you still don’t understand the discussion.
Hint: it’s not about individual revelations and it’s not about certainty. It’s about knowledge and how it’s justified
It might help if you asked yourself “How do I know?”
peace
Yesterday you called it a “crock” and KN called it idiocy. Does “a crock” mean close to rational?
If I don’t get another opportunity.
Happy new year
peace
I need a nap, but the Husky game is on.
KN, to fifth:
fifth,
The same goofy Fifth Logic™ employed by Abe in KN’s example is also there in the example I presented earlier (aka “Argument I”):
Some questions for you:
Do you understand that 24.71 is not an integer?
Do you understand that Argument I is therefore incorrect?
Do you recognize that Argument I employs the same goofy logic that you’ve been using?
Would you also then say there there is no “knowledge in general” but only specific instances of knowledge?
It’s two integers. Or perhaps three. Or more.
Let me put it this way. Human beliefs need to be justified in order to count as knowledge. Humans can have justified beliefs and unjustified beliefs. They can have things they believe but do not know. They are fallible.
God, otoh, cannot have unjustified beliefs. To the extent that we can speak of God having a belief, that belief would always be justified. With God all belief would be knowledge. So “the God kind of belief” would be quite different from human belief.
My inclination would be to go the other way. There is such a thing as knowledge in general, but there are no specific instances of knowledge.
🙂
keiths, to fifth:
Mung:
Here you go, Mung.
Nope. Still a crock. Close to being your position–in spite of your denial.
Happy New Year to you, too, Fifth.
I would agree. The question is not if they are justified but how they are justified.
I would say that God’s knowledge is justified because he is God. The core of God’s being is Trinitarian that is who he is three persons in communion.
Also don’t get hung up on always. The three persons are always and eternally in communion
I would agree that God’s beliefs are different than ours. Different is not the same as nonexistent.
Here is the definition of belief
a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
from here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
I think it’s pretty obvious that each of the members of the Godhead have confidence at least in each other. Even if we stipulate that that confidence is different than ours.
peace
That makes sense, but not God believing that something that both is and is not him loves himself. It could not be justified, and it could not be true.
Thanks, I need something like that! Do you links to remedial courses in everything? If so please post those too!
yes
No I really have no idea what you are yammering on about.
Premise one is not revelation simply because it is not true. By definition you can’t have false revelation. Therefore any argument contingent on premise one would also be untrue. You can’t get to truth by starting with falsehood.
None of this has anything to do with what we are discussing which is how knowledge is justified.
peace
what???
peace
ok, but it seems to me that only exacerbates the problem rather than solve it.
God’s “beliefs” are not justified like our beliefs are justified. It would seem to follow that God’s “knowledge” is not like our knowledge. It seems to me that God’s “beliefs” do not require justification, or if they do then that justification must somehow come from God’s own nature.
I have my doubts that the terms carry the same meaning when said of God.
Happy Groundhog day, fifth
That’s what God is for: the ultimate source of all special pleading. Praise God and His fallacious nature
I would agree. I think God’s knowledge flows directly from his nature.
At it’s core God’s nature is Trinitarian. That is three persons in eternal communion. Among other things communion means sharing information. That is who God is
I really don’t think a unitarian god can have justification for the reasons that Keith’s expresses so crudely.
Could God know with out justification? I suppose it’s possible but then his knowledge would be wholly different than ours. If God’s knowledge is wholly different than ours then how could he communicate his knowledge to us his creatures?
In this view God seems to be transcendent with out being immanent. If you want to preserve his immanence in another way I’m all ears. I just don’t see how it can be done.
peace
keiths:
fifth:
Christ, fifth. You actually think that Premise 1 is false?
Name an integer n such that n+1 is not an integer.
The highest known number.
petrushka:
🙂
For those who missed it the first time around:
The Largest Known Number
Is Joe Gallien’s LKN equivalent to Bill Cole’s “almost infinite, imaginary number”?
Now that’s special pleading! Name an integer such that n-1 is not an integer. Explain what it is that makes 0 an integer.
Here you go, Mung.
No, I’m sorry, that cannot be correct.
For that number to be known is to have justified true belief that that number is the highest number, but no one is justified in believing that any number is the highest number.
All of mathematics is grounded on belief, not knowledge.
Yes, we reveal to small children that 0 is an integer. And they trust us. But is it true, and is it justified?
This may help, Mung.
Human convention.
Nope.
I was certain that keiths had a proof. Are you aware of any mathematical proof that 0 is in fact an integer, or even a number, for that matter?