P
PeterJ
Guest
Could anyone point me to any atheistic responses to the miracle of the sun at Fatima?
- Status
D
da_nolo
Guest
heres one:
“it did not happen.”
talking to an athiest their famous response and only response at some points appear to be, “it did not happen”. some try and refute the relativity of such things as it may not be explained within ‘science’, their idol.
U
utunumsint
Guest
The usual response from atheists and some protestants who are uncomfortable with Marian aparitions is that it was a collective hallucination.
God bless,
Ut
God bless,
Ut
R
RobbyS
Guest
Emile Zola was invited to Lourdes and shown all the evidence of a miraculous healing.
The standard reply of atheists to reports was to dismiss the healings as examples of hysteria, since many of them involved religious women. But this case had to do with a man of no great piety with a shattered shinbone which had been mysterious restored during a visit to Lourdes. Zola was shown the x-rays and the testimony of physicians, before and afterwards. They could not explain the event. Zola was very courteous and thanked Lourdes officials. He wrote nothing about the incident but some time later wrote a novel dismissing the idea of miracles. It was too much of a challenge to his worldview. Skeptics of this sort are really believers. They have their own version of the god of the gaps. Anything that cannot be explained by Science now will, in their estimation, be explained in due course.
D
Detales
Guest
Why?
Superficially and from a distance in time it may be said that a very large number of people witnessed an event at a specifed time. It is clear that something happened, but as the effected area was 18-40 kliks at most, it was likely not the “sun” that was the source of the perceptions. The phenomenon was not reported as an event over the whole hemisphere. Many saw the phenomenon, and there is some variation from witnesses topically both disposed and indisposed to faith as to what exactly happened, including, it seems, some who saw nothing at all.
The mystery of the event, and the the visions associated with it certainly remain a mystery in scientific terms, in particular, I would think, the aspect of prediction. Does this mean it was the historic Mother of Jesus who was the agent in this phenomenon? Faith is certainly the easiest explanation given the disposition of that population. Yet though that may indeed be the way of it, there may also be another explanation or additional mitigation given some of the circumstances. For the pious, that may not necessarily exclude factors of the event as claimed.
The danger, in my estimation, is to “know” what happened, thus closing the mind to inquiry into what might be a more remarkable explanation than what is commonly offered. And certainly, if one is concerned with matters of faith and salvation, there are matters of more immediate concern than a miracle in another time and place, though those certailny have value in percipitating wonder. That in itself, given the adamantine nature of some cynics and sceptics, may be a miracle.* Yet it is too easily taken for “proof” by the pious, astonishing as a happening as it was.
Just as a side note to all this, there have been, historically, innumerable events of irrational or unexplainable nature. Some of these are chronicled in The Book of the Damned by Charles Fort. Others proliferate in other media venues, some of good repute. These phenomenon can be the subject of a field called “anomalistics,” which is the scientific study of unusual phenomenon and may be where one might go for an atheistc interpretaion of nearly anything of wonder lacking a usual explanation.
It would be important to note here that the mystery aspect of unexplainable phenomena has a value as well as the knowledge aspect, in that wonder is a virtue in keeping the mind susceptible to growth and new experience. The knowledge aspect may be useful in keeping that growth somewhat grounded in practicality. In all cases it is useful to remember that all of the above is the contents, not the substance, of mind. It is our nature to mistake those two, as we often assume our particualr contents to be equal to reality. That is impossible, save in a reasonably practical way of rudimentary social accounting for experience. As we know from physics, linguistics, epistomology, General Semantics, etc., the common person’s grasp on the actuality of things is highly questionable at best. This is true in particular of various states of awareness and modes of perception, but especially of Consciousness itself.
This seems due to our propensity to interpret from a highly parochial, emotionalized and egocentric position augmented in its turbulence causative ability by ignorance. The chief mitigation of that seems to be self knowledge usually through the difficult path of religion, or the easier one of some other more accurate systems of metaphysical accounting that may yet give religion a meaning beyond rote. In any case, the miracle of the Sun is an event of wonder!
Superficially and from a distance in time it may be said that a very large number of people witnessed an event at a specifed time. It is clear that something happened, but as the effected area was 18-40 kliks at most, it was likely not the “sun” that was the source of the perceptions. The phenomenon was not reported as an event over the whole hemisphere. Many saw the phenomenon, and there is some variation from witnesses topically both disposed and indisposed to faith as to what exactly happened, including, it seems, some who saw nothing at all.
The mystery of the event, and the the visions associated with it certainly remain a mystery in scientific terms, in particular, I would think, the aspect of prediction. Does this mean it was the historic Mother of Jesus who was the agent in this phenomenon? Faith is certainly the easiest explanation given the disposition of that population. Yet though that may indeed be the way of it, there may also be another explanation or additional mitigation given some of the circumstances. For the pious, that may not necessarily exclude factors of the event as claimed.
The danger, in my estimation, is to “know” what happened, thus closing the mind to inquiry into what might be a more remarkable explanation than what is commonly offered. And certainly, if one is concerned with matters of faith and salvation, there are matters of more immediate concern than a miracle in another time and place, though those certailny have value in percipitating wonder. That in itself, given the adamantine nature of some cynics and sceptics, may be a miracle.* Yet it is too easily taken for “proof” by the pious, astonishing as a happening as it was.
Just as a side note to all this, there have been, historically, innumerable events of irrational or unexplainable nature. Some of these are chronicled in The Book of the Damned by Charles Fort. Others proliferate in other media venues, some of good repute. These phenomenon can be the subject of a field called “anomalistics,” which is the scientific study of unusual phenomenon and may be where one might go for an atheistc interpretaion of nearly anything of wonder lacking a usual explanation.
It would be important to note here that the mystery aspect of unexplainable phenomena has a value as well as the knowledge aspect, in that wonder is a virtue in keeping the mind susceptible to growth and new experience. The knowledge aspect may be useful in keeping that growth somewhat grounded in practicality. In all cases it is useful to remember that all of the above is the contents, not the substance, of mind. It is our nature to mistake those two, as we often assume our particualr contents to be equal to reality. That is impossible, save in a reasonably practical way of rudimentary social accounting for experience. As we know from physics, linguistics, epistomology, General Semantics, etc., the common person’s grasp on the actuality of things is highly questionable at best. This is true in particular of various states of awareness and modes of perception, but especially of Consciousness itself.
This seems due to our propensity to interpret from a highly parochial, emotionalized and egocentric position augmented in its turbulence causative ability by ignorance. The chief mitigation of that seems to be self knowledge usually through the difficult path of religion, or the easier one of some other more accurate systems of metaphysical accounting that may yet give religion a meaning beyond rote. In any case, the miracle of the Sun is an event of wonder!
Code:
*I like to say that "A cynic is what empties into the sceptic tank."
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I have heard, although I know not of specifics, that there have been atheists converted on the spot at Fatima.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
I have been told that most of Europe was socked in by a massive storm system that day and could not see the sun.
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
It would be best if one could answer who truly knows this story well as myself.
The “Secular News” which is an Atheist newspaper reported that day that it was in fact a Miracle and there were no explanations whatsoever.
The “Secular News” which is an Atheist newspaper reported that day that it was in fact a Miracle and there were no explanations whatsoever.
D
Detales
Guest
OTCA, having re-read the previous posts I see one hearsay denial (not an expanation) and one possible claim of hallucination, which never was taken seriously by anyone serious about the event, So which explanations are you refering to?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
How big an area is that ? One klik (?) = ?
That last detail is something one does not hear of from “Fatimists” (if one may use the term).
If I were defending the reality of the alleged event, I would reply by saying that only those open to seeing the events were able to do so; & would then go on to say that this fitted the capacity of people to recognise Jesus as Messiah; & that this fit was a reason to accept the reality of the alleged event. This would be a defence based on the “shape” of certain themes in NT theology - it may have the disadvantage of not being “objective” enough for some (which would not make it a bad argument; to show it was that, it would have to be rebutted by some other theological argument). And it could also be said that the reality of the alleged event did not impose itself on those unwilling to accept it (= not predestined to do so - both of these are theological motifs in the Gospel (= the thing of which the four written & canonical gospels are a record).There are two issues here - at least 
- prediction - &
- the mode of the alleged apparition of the BVM
As to prediction - like many of the OT prophecies (& prophecy is not the same thing as prediction) the alleged messages were conditional. Prediction is a difficult category, because it implies determinism, unless we are very careful. Prophetic prediction in the Bible does not logically require fulfilment to be prophetic or predictive: Ezekiel & Jeremiah both make unfulfilled prophetic predictions. Even the fulfilment of a prediction does not of itself prove that the speaker was a true prophet - false prophets can predict truly; but if they preach false gods, they are false prophets, even though their prediction came about. The Gospel prophecies of Jesus are probably to be understood as warnings - IOW, not as absolute predictions of an inevitable future; otherwise, they would (assuming their genuineness) lead to despair, & not to the repentance which Jesus preached (Mark 1.15). So the picture is a complex one - the more so, because prophecy in Israel did not begin with the “writing Prophets” whose oracles are preserved in the Hebrew Bible; Samuel & others are centuries earlier.
more…
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Any number of things is unexplained - but that does not mean that God can be dragged in as though He were a secondary cause. Milk sours because of the chemical reaction of air upon milk - not because “God” has acted on it; that would make “God” (assuming, among many things, that “God” = the Jewish-Christian one) no different from a brownie or pixie, or at most a household lar. “Goddunit” is not the answer to the question “Why does milk turn sour ?”; nor to a host of others.
BTW - “atheism of the gaps” is not required: atheism as a world-view is all-encompassing; so it is not dependent on having a host of different phenomena to be atheistic about, nor is it a reaction only to what it cannot understand. Some atheists are gap-atheists, but this does not arise from the nature of atheism. Even if the problem of evil (for example) were not a problem, atheism would still be a fully world-view. To view it as relative to religion, as though it were dependent, or parasitic, upon it, is a great mistake. If Christians misunderstand atheism, their arguments against it will be paper tigers.Wonder is essential to theology; otherwise, theology becomes desiccated, a mere shuffling of abstractions.
Just wondering: is all of this your own work ? Or is it lifted from a web-page 
? It’s much more carefully composed than the average post, & the use of language is much more elegant.
D
Detales
Guest
Hi Gottle,
A click, klick, or klik in reference to distance equals a kilometer. The farthest away interviewd witness was 19K from “ground zero,” as far as the ones I’ve read. It was reported somewhere else that the phenomenon was witnessed as far as 40 “klicks” away, but I read no interview of that report.
More correctly, the majority of those present reported a very similar phenomenon, though some said they didn’t see it “dance,” including the children. A reporter’s photographer saw nothing, and it is reported that some others, faithful and not, also didn’t. There are lots of accounts of the event and these things can be read there. It doesn’t mean much; remember the farmer who didn’t see the steam engine because it was “impossible.” Humans are not noted for the acuity of their perceptions, especially those filtered by belief.
I have no stake in defending or attacking the nature of the event. Something clearly happened. I’m way more interested in about how we think about these kinds of things, and what presuppositions, such as language, etc, we bring to that table. I don’t know from my relative position in time and space what that event was, and if I had this same set of lenses I’m now using, I don’t think I would know even had I been there. People have had “religious” experiences since time immemorial. I’ve had a couple myself. It is difficult to draw other than experiential conclusions from these as they are not easily analysable by measure. There can be some fitting resolution for those, however, in other systems than Catholicism.
In particular, and especially regarding the identity of the apperitions, it is intersting to note that NDE’s have a remarkably uniform reportage globally, their contents being very similarly comprised of from one to seven phases. One of these includes “meeting a being of astonishing brilliance.” Apart from the “what” aspect of this phenomenon, the “who” attribution is colored by the belief system of the experiencer. Christians see “Jesus.” Buddhists see “Buddha.” Others see “A being of incomprehensible Love and Beauty.” Personally, I go with Danion Brinkley’s interpretation, that fitting most closely to my general understanding of things.
The identity aspect, again, as you have said, may not be of a modality ordinarily experienced. I sense that that is completely so. We have not yet scratched the abilities of Conscious awarenes, though we sometimes stumble onto something. There is far more inexistance thatnwe can even begin to comprehend. It doesn’t serve us to deal in either/or modalities in this regard. For instance, someone compiled a list of at least nine ways to get from one “planet” to another many different from taking a vehicle, as well as a similar number of answers to “Is there a God?” Only the first two of those are ordinary, the rest being rather esoteric, and frankly, much more believable, even to my Catholic sensibilities. Interesting related ideas may be found in J. W. Dunne’s *An Experiment with Time *and R. A. Heinlein’s novellas Elsewhen and Lost Legacy.
The one by Dunne gives a very plausible explanation for both prediction and deja vu. Considering Edgar Cayce and others, I have little doubt about some form of predictive modality, though I would not consciously persue them. My own Mentor, by report, was able to accurately describe the activities of one of his associates in striking detail, those happening on a day well before they had ever even known of each other. I have had somethig like that in terms of premonitions and in one case a dream which I only later discovered was, though symbolic, remarkably predictive of an event nearly twenty years hence. Based on all these and more, I agree that prophecies and predictions may be prophylactic in nature, and not “cast in stone,” yet having some degree of even high accuracy.
I’m incapable of dragging God anywhere. The lesser doesn’t determine the greater. Yet I understand the proceedural meaning you have in that respect. I only meant that as Darwin’s contemporary, (insert proper name–slips my mind right now…) who postulated that as there are other realms of beings than what we see with our range of spectrum perception, there may also be some interaction between these and our own species. For the most part, if they happen, these might be percieved as “acts of God” by most believers. In this general area, as well as regards non-christainist systems, overly pious faith may be a prophylactic to knowledge gained by consideration, discovery, or accident. As concerns “atheistic gaps,” my cosmology is not Creationist, Darwinian, ID, mechanistic, or any such. And I undersand that proper atheism is an encompasing world view. There are some views from atheists regarding the sanity of some of our behaviors that are of great wisdom and accuracy, as far as I’m concerned.
As for wonder, it is in my opinion essential to much more than theology. It is necessary as a function of inquiry and growth in any field and in the synthesis of them all. It also helps to prevent the usual pious error of taking belief for knowledge. Even the strongest faith in any system is demonstrably contents as distinct from substance. This is the reason for assiduous self inquiry. “Gnothi Seauton.” You might meet Jesus and kill the Buddha on the road in the same stroke. Neither will be whom you think.
Do you think I lifted all this from a web page?
A click, klick, or klik in reference to distance equals a kilometer. The farthest away interviewd witness was 19K from “ground zero,” as far as the ones I’ve read. It was reported somewhere else that the phenomenon was witnessed as far as 40 “klicks” away, but I read no interview of that report.
More correctly, the majority of those present reported a very similar phenomenon, though some said they didn’t see it “dance,” including the children. A reporter’s photographer saw nothing, and it is reported that some others, faithful and not, also didn’t. There are lots of accounts of the event and these things can be read there. It doesn’t mean much; remember the farmer who didn’t see the steam engine because it was “impossible.” Humans are not noted for the acuity of their perceptions, especially those filtered by belief.
I have no stake in defending or attacking the nature of the event. Something clearly happened. I’m way more interested in about how we think about these kinds of things, and what presuppositions, such as language, etc, we bring to that table. I don’t know from my relative position in time and space what that event was, and if I had this same set of lenses I’m now using, I don’t think I would know even had I been there. People have had “religious” experiences since time immemorial. I’ve had a couple myself. It is difficult to draw other than experiential conclusions from these as they are not easily analysable by measure. There can be some fitting resolution for those, however, in other systems than Catholicism.
In particular, and especially regarding the identity of the apperitions, it is intersting to note that NDE’s have a remarkably uniform reportage globally, their contents being very similarly comprised of from one to seven phases. One of these includes “meeting a being of astonishing brilliance.” Apart from the “what” aspect of this phenomenon, the “who” attribution is colored by the belief system of the experiencer. Christians see “Jesus.” Buddhists see “Buddha.” Others see “A being of incomprehensible Love and Beauty.” Personally, I go with Danion Brinkley’s interpretation, that fitting most closely to my general understanding of things.
The identity aspect, again, as you have said, may not be of a modality ordinarily experienced. I sense that that is completely so. We have not yet scratched the abilities of Conscious awarenes, though we sometimes stumble onto something. There is far more inexistance thatnwe can even begin to comprehend. It doesn’t serve us to deal in either/or modalities in this regard. For instance, someone compiled a list of at least nine ways to get from one “planet” to another many different from taking a vehicle, as well as a similar number of answers to “Is there a God?” Only the first two of those are ordinary, the rest being rather esoteric, and frankly, much more believable, even to my Catholic sensibilities. Interesting related ideas may be found in J. W. Dunne’s *An Experiment with Time *and R. A. Heinlein’s novellas Elsewhen and Lost Legacy.
The one by Dunne gives a very plausible explanation for both prediction and deja vu. Considering Edgar Cayce and others, I have little doubt about some form of predictive modality, though I would not consciously persue them. My own Mentor, by report, was able to accurately describe the activities of one of his associates in striking detail, those happening on a day well before they had ever even known of each other. I have had somethig like that in terms of premonitions and in one case a dream which I only later discovered was, though symbolic, remarkably predictive of an event nearly twenty years hence. Based on all these and more, I agree that prophecies and predictions may be prophylactic in nature, and not “cast in stone,” yet having some degree of even high accuracy.
I’m incapable of dragging God anywhere. The lesser doesn’t determine the greater. Yet I understand the proceedural meaning you have in that respect. I only meant that as Darwin’s contemporary, (insert proper name–slips my mind right now…) who postulated that as there are other realms of beings than what we see with our range of spectrum perception, there may also be some interaction between these and our own species. For the most part, if they happen, these might be percieved as “acts of God” by most believers. In this general area, as well as regards non-christainist systems, overly pious faith may be a prophylactic to knowledge gained by consideration, discovery, or accident. As concerns “atheistic gaps,” my cosmology is not Creationist, Darwinian, ID, mechanistic, or any such. And I undersand that proper atheism is an encompasing world view. There are some views from atheists regarding the sanity of some of our behaviors that are of great wisdom and accuracy, as far as I’m concerned.
As for wonder, it is in my opinion essential to much more than theology. It is necessary as a function of inquiry and growth in any field and in the synthesis of them all. It also helps to prevent the usual pious error of taking belief for knowledge. Even the strongest faith in any system is demonstrably contents as distinct from substance. This is the reason for assiduous self inquiry. “Gnothi Seauton.” You might meet Jesus and kill the Buddha on the road in the same stroke. Neither will be whom you think.
Do you think I lifted all this from a web page?
Code:
* Heinlein postulated that the first human civilztion would begin around 2500 CE after a catstrophic global failure of great duration. He was too early in most of his accurate predictions, so this might be an early estimate a well. Mr. Gandhi, who despite seeing many wonderful technical toys observed on a tour of London, remarked on being asked his opinion of Western civilization that "It would be a very good idea." I believe that Heinlein's prediction would dismay him.- Status