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.
Mung,
And skeptical atheists are non-existent.
I don’t think you get what is going on in this discussion.
By definition God knows what will result from every action or failure to act. Also by definition we do not know these things. So by definition we are not in position to judge God actions.
On the other hand when it comes to our own actions we must go with we do know and we don’t know that lying to the Nazis will result in a far worse evil.
So the moral thing for us to do is deceive the Nazis if we believe it might save others.
peace
OK.
That doesn’t follow.
We are thinking beings – we judge the actions of ourselves and others every day of our lives – we can’t operate any other way. But just because our informtion is necessarily limited it does not disqualify us from judjing the actions of others, God included.
When the Amalekite mother told a lie to protect her infant from the Israelite soldiers was she immoral to do so?
It does mean that our judgement is necessarily incomplete and deficient and in the end worthless.
It’s like a ignorant fourth grader from the 19th century judgeing the academic chops of a Hawking. Only much worse.
Do you have any evidence that ever happened?
peace
Limited subjective opinions are all anyone has, including your limited subjective opinion that revelation is necessary and sufficient for objective knowledge.
You build a reputation. You demonstrate competence, reliability and insight. Then you will have demonstrated that your opinions are worth listening to.
That’s what you have failed to do, and that’s why nobody cares about your pronouncements. You mistake being engaged on an internet forum for your opinions being respected.
…Said the puffed up windbag.
There seems to be a pattern in the rhetoric of the typical atheist. Is it just a coincidence that there are so many acidic, humorless, blowhards?
It could simply be that Mung is most comfortable on the edge of absurdity (and slightly over).
Just like theists, who subjectively choose which “scripture” to follow.
God reveals we should trust science which is often wrong? Strange
You just did, you said God revealed it to you
Sure there is , it is an useful assumption, celestial mechanics, theory of relativity.
Peace
1) Is that just a subjective opinion? If so why should anyone care?
2) Is it impossible even in principle for an omnipotent God to reveal objective information to us?
3) if so how do you know this and why should I care what you think?
peace
Speak for yourself.
Only the most sinister ideologies would insist that their adherents’ thought is worthless. Just more evidence of the exits being blocked.
Wave those hands!
How is a useful assumption a compelling reason?
It’s a useful assumption that God exists aka Pascal’s razor does that mean we have a compelling reason to assume God exists?
No, God reveals that natural law is consistent and universal and we can trust science because of this revelation.
By the way, science is not ever wrong scientists are often wrong.
peace
There you go again with the judgementalism.
Only the most sinister ideologies would judge others in this way.
how is a simple question a hand wave in your universe?
peace
Pascal’s razor? Is that a thing?
He won it in a wager with Occam.
I completely agree. Atheists are very good at showing the ID theists as the acidic, humourless blowhards that they are.
Until a few millions years ago, in all directions from our relative position
Nope, we only observe what is observable.
But it what is happening in the UU relevant to this?
mung:
But it doesn’t follow at all that the universe is expanding. That’s just a basic error in reasoning.
If the UU is static, the universe would be expanding
If the rate of contraction of the UU is less than the rate of expansion OU, the universe would be expanding
If the UU is contracting faster than faster than OU, then we should see blue shifted light as the previously unobservable becomes observable. Since we do not we have a reasonable basis for the claim the universe is expanding
Per fifth revelation
Based on our knowledge it is a reasonable assumption if they still exist, just as we cannot know if the sun blew up 5 minutes ago.
Irrelevant, we are observing the light from them
Just for the record, if anyone is wondering how the laws of physics can be universal and necessary truths, there’s a simple answer: they aren’t. The laws of physics are useful instruments (see How The Laws of Physics Lie).
(Notice that Cartwright is a scientific realist about theoretical posits if those posits have causal powers; she’s just not a realist about laws. I think that’s the right position to take.)
Impossible per revelation
If God knows what will result from every action or failure to act, I assume this includes what will result from his own actions or failure to act. And given that he is all powerful and all loving, could he not have prevented the holocaust and also prevented any negative outcome of his actions?since he didn’t, the simplest explanation is that he doesn’t exist. However, if he does exist, the simplest explanation of his actions (or lack of them) is that he is a sick, sadistic bastard.
Arguing that we are just not smart enough to understand god’s reason why the holocaust and child cancers is just hand waving in the extreme.
Maybe you could hypothesize about why preventing the holocaust or childhood cancers might result in worse “evils” than allowing them. I am not asking you to judge god’s reasoning, just to come up with a justification that is logical coherent.
It allows you to land a spacecraft on another planet
Wager. Actually the Wager is not about assuming a certain kind of God exists, it is about what is the best way to act if such a God exists. It is a risk / reward thing.
newton: God reveals we should trust science which is often wrong? Strange
Unless God reveals science can detect natural laws, how do you know you can trust science to detect natural laws?
Because you are able to imagine science which is never wrong or revelation?
Science doesn’t detect anything. It it is not person it’s a process
see above
peace
🙂
What better home for me then, than right here at The Skeptical Zone?
Are computers people? Perhaps so we are on the same page tell me what the process that is science .
FYI: “A radiation detector, also known as a geiger counter, can detect a broad range of ionizing alpha and beta particles, and gamma and x-rays that may be emitting harmful levels of radiation. Radiation detectors sense ionizing radiation with an enclosed Geiger Mueller (GM) tube to count radiation particles or rays. Alpha and beta particles are measured in counts per minute (CPM) or counts per second (CPS). Gamma rays and x-rays are measured in milliRoentgens (mR) per hour, microSieverts (μSv) per hour, or milliSieverts (mSv) per hour.”
🙂 🙂
Is it at least possible that your humor isn’t all that funny? I’m just asking.
See what happens when you post in the wee hours with no sleep and don’t proofread
😉
peace
No, that is the point,
In order to eliminate evil you have to eliminate people.
And a world with out people is a “negative outcome”.
peace
I can think of lots of possible reasons but Plantinga’s free will defense will suffice. I’m really surprised you have not heard of it.
check it out
peace
no,
They are just machines they don’t do “mental” things.Geiger counters are also machines in case you forgot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
peace
Are you suggesting that we can’t have free will if we don’t have the freedom to do evil? Sorry, I can’t buy that. And how does preventing childhood cancer harm free will
Heavens no, I’m suggesting that there are a near infinite number of possible reasons for God to allow evil. The free will defense is only one of them. Albeit one that has been cussed and discussed for decades.
In order for you to judge God and conclude that he is “obviously a SSB” you would need to know and understand each and every one of the possible reasons and conclude that none of them is sufficient and that no good reason could ever be given.
Good luck with that one
You really need to read up on Plantinga’s defense. It’s all most like you think that you are asking things that have not been addressed before.
here it is for free
http://nagasawafamily.org/article-alvin-plantinga-god-freedom-&-evil.pdf
Once you get a handle on that one possible reason then you would be in position to look at others.
peace
You don’t seem to mind that Erik has refused to read Plantinga when I suggested it to him. Isn’t this reading good for the gander too? (Or have you determined, as I have, that there’s no point trying to get him to learn anything?)
I must of missed that one.
For the record Erik should read Plantinga if he is discussing the problem of evil 😉
peace
Thanks, FMM. I wouldn’t hold my breath though.
If only FMM were there to issue copies of Plantinga’s FWD to the Jews as they were marched to the gas chambers.
“It’s all for the best!” FFM cried as the doors clanked shut.
Isn’t it possible that you wouldn’t know funny if it slapped you in the face with a cold, wet flounder covered in whip cream?
And therein lies the true awfulness of theodicy: it treats ‘the problem of evil’ as needing a metaphysical solution, rather than a political one.
There is a huge difference between the logical problem of evil and the psychological problem of evil.
The logical problem of evil has been solved.
The solution to the psychological problem of evil is to know that God loves you and to trust that he will do what is best for you.
I know God loves me so I trust him..
Knowing that he loves you is the gateway to the gospel. So I don’t expect you to understand his love.
quote:
but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
(Joh 10:26-27)
end quote:
peace
That is why I would never presume to offer a theodicy and neither did Plantinga.
The problem is when folks confuse a defense with a theodicy. I would expect that sort of confusion from most folks here but I’d hope that someone like you would know the difference
peace
That it must be for the best if there is a god doesn’t imply that it IS for the best because there IS a god. All Plantinga actually does is show the burden the omni-theist must meet and suggest how that might be accomplished.
The problem of evil is an argument AGAINST the existence of god; it can’t be converted into an argument FOR god’s existence without logical error.
Of course, some here and elsewhere have denied that the Plantinga/Leibniz defense is inadequate. I don’t think humans know enough to know that’s the case myself, but I do want to acknowledge that his defense has reasonable critics.
Anyhow, you and KN are confused about the structure of this matter.
No. If that happened, I would laugh.
Actually that a Geiger counter is a machine is the point, persons are not required to detect. If you mean to give a meaning to the data that detection provides probably, though that is more interpretation.
So did God reveal to you the process of science can detect these consistent and universal natural laws? Or did He reveal people are required?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
peace
FMM: “Heavens no, I’m suggesting that there are a near infinite number of possible reasons for God to allow evil.”
And topping the list is that he is a sick, sadistic bastard.
Why don’t you mention the reason that you feel, in your opinion, is the most compelling reason for god to allow evil to exist. One that does not involve hand waving and does not end up with God being a sick, sadistic bastard. Then we can discuss it.
Because people are different, What I find to be a convincing reason will definitely not convince you.
I find that the people who hold libertarian free will to be supremely valuable generally find the “free will defense” to be attractive. Others like me are not so fond of it.
It really depends on what you value most in the universe. I love grace more than anything and so I gravitate to the idea that the worse the evil that is allowed the more grace that can be given. If you don’t particularly like grace you won’t find that to be a sufficient reason and would want something else.
So it really is up to you. Is there absolutely nothing in the universe that you value more than the avoidance of suffering?
Any way, God’s actual reason for allowing evil is irrelevant to the question at hand. If you know that God loves you and trust he will do what is best the problem of evil simply evaporates.
peace
Indeed, thousands of years ago:
There are still some foolish people around who worship the concept of an omni-god, though. Weird, huh?
How many of the Jews sent to the death camps believed in God and believed that God loved them? How did that work out for them?
Their suffering in the death camps is insignificant to the suffering they will indure in god’s torture camps the hellworshipping trinitarians and mohammedists believe in.
You left atheists out. Don’t we rate a camp?
Or does our time debating with certain people on TSZ qualify as hell?