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.
Who cares? According to the fifthmonarchyman guy the so called “atheists” know god exists, meaning they are not atheists, but just mentally challenged theists.
I don’t know.
like this
quote:
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
(Rom 8:28)
end quote:
Once again the only reason you are surprised by this is that you don’t know God loves you and are unwilling to trust him
peace
Leave it to Patrick to forswear all of modern scholarship and appeal to an ancient text. 😉
I will be very interested if the folks from his side are willing to show him his error here.
What do you say walto?
peace
Not mentally challenged just in denial when it comes to this one.
peace
I want to watch FMM explaining to the kid dying in agony that bone cancer is the best thing for him.
You must be very insecure in your position to feel you need to stoop to libel and slander.
peace
One does not preclude the other. They are liars with regard to god: The claim to not know that god exists. And in some kind of mass delusion they’ve built a whole industry based on their lie proclaiming to each other how god doesn’t exist. WTF!!??? Why do theists do such things? What’s wrong with their brains?
You don’t need to explain that.
If the kid knows that God loves him. All you need to do is remind him to trust God.
If he does not know that God loves him you need to show him that God loves him.
peace
No but it does not entail the other either.
You can be mentally challenged and in denial or you can be mentally gifted and in denial.
In fact intelligence sometimes makes denial easier
peace
Becasue it would be incorrect, or insensitive?
Could you elaborate more? I don’t know what you’re trying to say.
it could be insensitive depending on the kid. It might also be incorrect depending on his own personal perspective of what is good for him.
peace
In other words, dishonestly expressing their beliefs?
That figures.
peace
And what about reminding him that what’s happening to him is a punishment to his parents? That’s what you said not too long ago
We’re not talking about little Timmy’s subjective opinion about what is good for him. After all his opinion is worthless, remember?
If God ‘allows’ a kid to die in agony from bone cancer then it cannot be anything other than ‘for the best’.
That is your position.
So it’s a “no”… or a “maybe”?
again,
If an alcoholic claims to be able to drink responsibly does that mean that they are dishonestly expressing their beliefs or are they just incapable of critical thinking on this one point.
peace
NO,
My position is that it’s possible that God has sufficient reason for not intervening to prevent evil.
Whether a particular evil is “for the best” has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
peace
it’s an invitation to review your inflammatory statements and what they say about the strength of your position.
peace
In your analogy, does the alcoholic know he can’t drink responsibly? Of course the answer is no and your example fails miserably
I’ve reviewed my statements. They say nothing about the strength of my position.
When you first wrote that “atheists” know god exists, I thought you were just in denial. Now I think you are a snowflake to boot.
Not sure what you’re getting at. Either the alcoholic is lying or he believes what he says.
If an atheist believes god does not exist, then he doesn’t know god exists. But according to you the “atheist” knows god exists.
Yes, Of course he knows this at least when he is being brutally honest with himself.
The problem with denial is that it takes difficult painful self reflection to overcome it and often we are unable to muster that sort of thing.
peace
Or he is in denial.
Are you unable to even conceive of more than two options here?
denial : a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with a personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the problem or reality
from here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denial
peace
So, God’s purpose for mid 20th century European Jews was to suffer and die horribly in Nazi death camps? My “sick, sadistic bastard” explanation is looking better with every comment you make.
And you complain about others not arguing in good faith when your own position is premised on your interlocutors’ dishonesty.
You are aware of the extreme irony in this statement, aren’t you?
It’s possible that Hitler had sufficient reason to murder 6 million Jews.
Maybe God ordered him to do it.
Who are we to judge Hitler?
Deny: state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of.
Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood
2.something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture:
peace
Oh, it’s a “he”? Gosh, I was extra-careful not to use the gender pronouns.
They are not three options, but two. Being in denial would mean for him to believe he is able to drink responsibly. In reality he isn’t.
The second option is: he’s lying.
Again: it doesn’t translate to atheism.
So, in order for my hypothetical dying baby to accept the extreme pain and death that he will have to endure is for me, his hypothetical father, to cave into God’s pressure and believe in him? Ignoring the fact that my hypothetical dying baby is too young to understand this loving god, it doesn’t sound like God is allowing me free will.
If he became aware I expect his head would explode.
Are you really claiming to not able to even entertain the possibility there exists something like “fooling yourself”?
I never cease to be amazed at the lengths folks will go here.
peace
Says the man who thinks it’s impossible he’s wrong.
There is no pressure to beleive in God. Just like there is no pressure to believe that something is true. In fact if you beleive something is true you already believe in God.
I have no idea what “accepting” suffering even means.
I would hope that no one would accept suffering. IMO we should always try to eliminate it unless doing so would result in something much worse.
peace
What? Not only doI think it’s possible I’m wrong I spelled out specific evidence that would convince me that I am wrong about the existence of God.
Something that almost no one on that side of the fence has been willing to do
peace
Yes the irony was completely intentional. I’m disappointed that no one here was able to catch the joke.
peace
One thought on the problem of evil. If God appeared one day and started killing people, torturing babies, and doing all sort of things that we perceive as evil, would you just shrug and say “it must be for a good reason”?, would you believe it’s the best possible world and we’re nobody to question God’s motives? Would you still believe God is perfectly good? or perhaps just a sadistic bastard, but all the other attributes still stand?
Forgive me if I am skeptical.
dazz,
Or better yet, if god stood in front of FMM and started torturing his child, would FMM just sit back and say that he/she is not capable of judging god’s reasons for doing so and thank god for loving him?
Your third option seems to be an option which can be interpreted as either option one or option two.
Since I hold the belief that people are generally honest, for me “Fooling yourself” would classify as option one: the alcoholic believes he is able; in reality he isn’t.
Maybe you can clarify: Does the alcoholic believe he is able? It’s a yes or no question.
Great question(s). As FMM is of the “revelation camp” of theism (in spite of his regular cries of “I’m a fallibalist!”) I think he’d have to say “it must be for a good reason.” But for anybody with their feet on the ground, such acts of atrocity will give pause.
I mean, from some sort of metaphysical standpoint, one can agree that if there’s an omni-God there must be good reasons for it allowing, say, monsoons that kill thousands of apparent “innocents.” Sure, one can go on to make up lots of weird possible reasons. And, I suppose, there need be no contradiction in any of the defense.
But such a defense will be plausible only to somebody who’s absolutely sure in the first place. From the point of view of epistemology (rather than metaphysics), we have been given good reason to doubt an omni-God by such atrocities, and the POSSIBILITY of such a being existing anyhow will not affect the legitimacy of those doubts.
In other words, a very hard spin serve landing right on the end line will have been delivered by the atheist. And an attempted return involving mere imagined possibilities will dribble into the net.
Good question
If your wife started doing something that was completely out of charter for her would your first impulse be to assume that you were wrong all this time and she was really an evil sadistic bitch. Or would you try and figure out what was going on that you don’t know about.
Just like with my wife I have a long history with God and know him not to be evil. If he started doing things that were evil I would try and figure out what was going on and what his reasons were.
If there were no possible sufficient reasons for why he was doing these things I would cease to worship him.
peace
I would agree with this. If you don’t know that God loves you and trust that he will do the right thing you will assume that he is does not love you and will not do the right thing.
That is why the Gospel is the only real solution to the physiological problem of evil.
peace
Yeah, the whole defense against the problem of evil reeks of amorality. Why should anyone forfeit their moral judgment when it’s about God? Why are we not supposed to question God’s alleged actions just because we’re imperfect beings? We’re also imperfect beings when we apply our imperfect moral compass to other imperfect humans. Shouldn’t in fact a MGB be held to a higher moral standard?
So even if all this is “necessary” evil to maximize goodness, if god can safe a kid, or prevent the holocaust and doesn’t do it, those are evil actions or omissions, even if it somehow led to an overall better world for some weird reasons. So at best God needs to be evil, constantly, to maximize goodness in the world. If that was true, this is a Very limited God Plantinga and the other theists are worshipping. Certainly a God that deserves being called into question. A limited god made in our imperfect image
If I’m not allowed to question my wife’s acts, how am I supposed to know if she’s “doing something that was completely out of charter”?
Also, imagine she’s a nurse, and one day she starts letting her patients die in extreme pain (pulling a Mother Theresa). If she told me: “don’t worry, you wouldn’t understand, it will all work for the better”, I suspect I wouldn’t just shrug and ignore the whole thing.
I think another important difference there is that dazz probably has a pretty good reasons for believing in the existence of his wife and also knows a large bunch of her characteristics. With god, it’s fairy tales and bad arguments from start to finish. Not the sort of stuff that ought to overturn clear instances of atrocities.
FMM may have his Gospel, but the rest of us must make do with common sense, experience and reason.
Could God lie if He had a good reason?