Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Miracle of the Sun

October 13, 1917, Fatima, Portugal.

"The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceeding fast and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat." ― Dr. Domingos Pinto Coelho, writing for the newspaper Ordem.[19]
"…The silver sun, enveloped in the same gauzy grey light, was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds… The light turned a beautiful blue, as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral, and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands… people wept and prayed with uncovered heads, in the presence of a miracle they had awaited. The seconds seemed like hours, so vivid were they." ― Reporter for the Lisbon newspaper O Dia.

"The sun's disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible." ― Dr. Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University.

"As if like a bolt from the blue, the clouds were wrenched apart, and the sun at its zenith appeared in all its splendor. It began to revolve vertiginously on its axis, like the most magnificent firewheel that could be imagined, taking on all the colors of the rainbow and sending forth multi-colored flashes of light, producing the most astounding effect. This sublime and incomparable spectacle, which was repeated three distinct times, lasted for about ten minutes. The immense multitude, overcome by the evidence of such a tremendous prodigy, threw themselves on their knees." ― Dr. Formigão, a professor at the seminary at Santarem, and a priest.""

17 Comments:

Blogger Vytautas said...

Perezoso -

How come you have to depend on people from the 1800s to show the fallibility of scripture? Is it because you cannot do it yourself?

4:27 PM  
Blogger Perezoso said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:35 AM  
Blogger Perezoso said...

I don't depend on them, anymore than someone using a specific argument form (say modus ponens) that Bergman, Jeffrey or Copi or whoever included in a logic text depended on those writers.

Hume for instance is authoritative on the subject . Hume does not reject miracles out of hand. He more or less says they don't conform to our ordinary experience--they are extraordinary. The evidence provided is scant, and inconsistent. There are not similar miraculous events notated in history (say a virgin birth): of course, that does not mean it's impossible, but does suggest it's rather unlikely--highly implausible. Bayes theorem suggests that as well. For that matter, even if some extraordinary event occurred--say someone woke up after a day or two after he was presumed dead--that does not necessarily establish a theological miracle (as Hume also knew) . Also, other prophetic sections of the NT--say the Book of Revelation--challenge rational thought. I've never seen a 7 headed beast with 10 horns, and I don't expect to: the ravings of a madman, according to Jefferson (er maybe Jeff.'s in perdido, too, give his subjecting Scripture to reason?).

-------------------

Fatima, however mysterious, presents similar difficulties. It was probably some unusual weather phenomena, like "sun dogs", or parhelion (I seen a few remarkable parhelions, usually at dusk in winter with a bit of cloud cover). Then add the religious hysteria factor. Or a UFO?

That said, the reports from Fatima are quite puzzling (and not all witnesses were catholics), and perhaps there was some strange anomaly--I would be tempted to say a collective hallucination of some sort. Again, that does not necessarily establish a theological miracle.


--------------
Another point which the triablogue demons have completely overlooked regarding the onus of miracles: why not address ALL miraculous claims-- Fatima, Levitating buddhas; Loch ness Monster. Ghosts, etc. Chupacabras.

Here's a comment of mine deleted by Reichmarshall Steve:

“Why not say the virgin of Guadalupe? .....or bleeding statues…Indeed a God who only affords a few strange miracles to Mother Theresas and denies them in many situations when He was definitely needed, would be either some amoral King-God.”



That may seem trivial to the religious hysteria case, but rather important point. Keller a religious dude from Yale has written on it. Petty miracles--even Fatima--are nothing compared to a panzer division vs red army. Where was Jeezuss with a miracle when needed most? (think the Tsunami of 2004 as well). Or could have just prevented it--or not included on the celestial rolodex.

12:13 PM  
Blogger Vytautas said...

None of the above are from the 1800s. Do you have any nineteenth century examples of the fallibility of the scriptures?

1:13 PM  
Blogger Perezoso said...

Note:

20th/twentieth century = 1900s

19th/nineteenth century = 1800's.

18th/Eighteenth century= 1700s

--------------------

so my examples are from 18th and 19th (founding fathers). There are other thinkers who have written on miracles and fallibility.

Ah here's one from 20th century, SJ Gould:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html


Gould's actually a bit superior to the Dawkins gang. Btw, I did not say I was "atheist": was Jefferson atheist? That he questioned the God of the Old and New Test (and maybe disbelieved) does not make him "atheist."

I am skeptical of the authority of scripture, and of infallibility, even of monotheism as a whole, but admire cathedrals, the beauty of nature, Bach, even some religious writers: say Dostoyevsky--but the Dostoyevsky religion is sort of desperate, human, a bit irrational, somewhat poetic. Not simply a matter of arranging everything into nice Aristotelian syllogisms.....

1:40 PM  
Blogger Perezoso said...

SJ Gould on the difference between science and dogma:

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Bravo. That's really Hume's point on fallibility updated via Popper (and become "falsifiable-ness"), and Darwin, and then stated fairly eloquently by Professor Gould. We cannot confirm claims of ancient miracles--or really any scripture. They are in principle not-falsifiable, and really not even a matter of inference, as is the theory of evolution (based on facts--fossil record, radiocarbon dating, adaptation, etc)

That I quote him does not mean that I approve of his ideas, yet I find him a bit more persuasive than Dawkins and co, and not quite the reductionist.

Gould's NOMA offers a somewhat pragmatic method for bridging the gap between religious and science, though I doubt many religious people approve (and Dawkins and Co don't).

4:38 PM  
Blogger Vytautas said...

So since miricles are not probable, then the miricles described in the Bible did not happen. But this could be said of any historical event, since all historical events occur once in history and they never happen again. And you account for the discription of mircles in the Bible by means of mass-hallucination. But halluciantions are private experiences, not collective experiences, since each person has one mind and they do not share a corprate mind.

12:08 PM  
Blogger Perezoso said...

...this could be said of any historical event, since all historical events occur once in history and they never happen again.

As stated above, it's highly improbable, tho' not impossible, that miracles occurred: paraphrasing Gould, when you toss your snapple bottle into the trash, it's not logically impossible perhaps that it might float up (via a waveparticle collapse, man!), instead of fall, but not really worth considering : care to wager on it happening? If the odds are one in a million, or even one in a thousand, it's a fairly safe bet it won't occur (and didn't occur, even if some ancient writer said it did).

In regards to history, you are sort of correct. We have no way to prove without any possibility of error that say Louis XVI was beheaded via guillotine. But there were hundreds of witnesses, it's reported in papers, and historians agree that it did occur--so it's fairly safe bet that Loius XVI was beheaded: besides that historical fact requires no extra leap of faith that a miracle does--the action of guillotines is not miraculous, but rather Newtonian .

That's unlike scripture, with one or maybe two ancient reports and no objective historical report, plus the added non-newtonian, sorcery-like aspect (dead coming back to life, virgin birth, water into wine etc). It's not impossible but highly unlikely: and other explanations possible (including metaphorical).

2:19 PM  
Blogger Vytautas said...

So how does the above prove that the miracles of the Bible did not happen? If you have some evidence for an event, then how does that show the event did not happen? You say that the evidence for the biblical miracles is not enough by comparing ancient events to modern events, which is unhistorical. Why should ancient events have as much evidence as modern events? You are using an unrealistic histroical standard.

Also you seem to accept a Newtonian view of the universe. Are you a Deist of sorts? What evidence do you have that God does not interfere with the laws of nature?

1:42 PM  
Blogger Perezoso said...

I don't think you understood Gould's point. Purported miracles are not like normal historical claims (say the lives of Caesar), or natural science. They are not confirmable, at least in the sense that normal scholarship is. There's a fossil record: where is a sign of any miracle? And whether testimony is sound another thing.

Besides, why biblical events instead of hinduism, paganism, etc? The Mayans believed that jaguar-deities arrived from the sun and started civilization or something. Can that be confirmed? Not easily, but seems rather unlikely.


I'm not a Deist per se, but that's not impossible: I suspect the Deists (including early Americans) were attempting to reconcile the new science with religion. Even Deist claims have prima facie problems, however: any being who orders nature also would command volcanoes and so forth wouldn't He?

If by Deism you mean understanding the order, even design of nature, without any specific religious claims, I sort of agree: a kind of Emersonian religion (not necessarily unitarian). The Argument from Design does carry a certain weight, even in secular terms: though I think the fundies are misusing it. Evolution itself has design like aspects...(any time a biologist says something improved or got better there nearly seems to be a design claim)

At the same time, the Emersonian generally forgets that nature is not all mountains and forests, but great white sharks, insects, disease, jaguars, etc.

6:37 PM  
Blogger Vytautas said...

Perezoso: I don't think you understood Gould's point. Purported miracles are not like normal historical claims (say the lives of Caesar), or natural science. They are not confirmable, at least in the sense that normal scholarship is. There's a fossil record: where is a sign of any miracle? And whether testimony is sound another thing.

Vytautas: Miricles are not normal historical events. If miricles happened every day, they would not be miricles but a natural law.

Perezoso: Besides, why biblical events instead of hinduism, paganism, etc? The Mayans believed that jaguar-deities arrived from the sun and started civilization or something. Can that be confirmed? Not easily, but seems rather unlikely.

Vytautas: Because you claimed that the Bible was fallible, but you did not show it yet. If you say there is not enough evidence, you rebutted the claim, but to refute the claim you have to show your work.

9:38 AM  
Blogger Perezoso said...

"""Because you claimed that the Bible was fallible, but you did not show it yet.""""

No, I offered sound reasons why it should be considered fallible. It's not merely, "the Bible's true, T v F" (though one could ala Carnap take a positivisitic view and say since it's not capable of being verified, it's false, at least in terms of truth functionality). Moreover, Carnap follows Hume in many things, and would probably agree that miracles are sufficient to call the authority of the bible into question: if x says during testimony in a trial that a ghost killed his mama, they strike that from the record. Uniformity of experience, and public reason precludes ghosts.

That's what Hume was about: anyone who speaks of virgin births should not be taken literally (or they are mad), and if myth, not really authoritative either. Not a big deal now: it was when the presbyterian zombies and bapticks were running England and most of scotland.


Or you could say scripture's meaningless. I don't think it's meaningless, but like all religious literature, uh, closer to literature. The Book of Job for instance, seems nearly like short story, or play. I don't think all of the bible reads that way (say the beatitudes--but sounds like a poor preacher, really, not supernatural being), but it does seem more mythological and symbolic more than history.

Besides miracles ARE found in other texts, whether pagan, hindu, etc. Hume suggests (in a subtle way) that conflicting evidence cancels out all religious claims as to truth: not sure, but any history of Roman empire also will make mention of omens, various miracles (tho not all so biblical), supernatural events. Indeed, under some tyrant like Tiberius, the pagan priest would be expected to produce a miracle, or accurate divination, or like they cut off his 'nads in the street, and roast him in a brass bull for the evening's entertainment. Bellisimo!

3:58 PM  
Blogger Vytautas said...

Reading Hume will give you one man's fallible opinion about what happened long ago. Why not use primary sources?

5:29 PM  
Blogger Perezoso said...

You've already assumed the Bible to be true; you've accepted the dogma, without sufficient proof--though I suspect that's because the dogma (and church, of whatever sort) has a certain force, regardless of how ancient and implausible it is.

It's not about Hume the man (he may have had moral shortcomings), but about his arguments. The point on miracles means the text is unreliable, the testimony questionable, just as if a witness in a trial made mention of ghosts and demons. The uniformity of experience precludes ghosts: when someone mentions them, his testimony is no longer reasonable. Hume has nothing to do with it, except by clarifying the issue centuries ago.

I will agree with a certain degree of biblical ethics, say the Sermon on the Mount. That's not what the infallibilist wants, however: he wants blind obedience. He wants theocracy.

1:14 AM  
Blogger Vytautas said...

Perezoso: You've already assumed the Bible to be true; you've accepted the dogma, without sufficient proof--though I suspect that's because the dogma (and church, of whatever sort) has a certain force, regardless of how ancient and implausible it is.

Vytautas: The Bible is a primary souce document, so that it needs no proof.

Perezoso: It's not about Hume the man (he may have had moral shortcomings), but about his arguments. The point on miracles means the text is unreliable, the testimony questionable, just as if a witness in a trial made mention of ghosts and demons. The uniformity of experience precludes ghosts: when someone mentions them, his testimony is no longer reasonable. Hume has nothing to do with it, except by clarifying the issue centuries ago.

Vytautas: If a text mentions beings such as ghosts and deamons, then we are to dismiss the text because they are not real. So we have to dismiss Hume because in order to make the statement that we should dismiss fantastic claims he has to mention these claims, so that he refutes himself.

Perezoso: I will agree with a certain degree of biblical ethics, say the Sermon on the Mount. That's not what the infallibilist wants, however: he wants blind obedience. He wants theocracy.

Vytautas: If you would agree to it, you would live in harmony with it, but no man can live in harmony with the law except Jesus, since he is the Son of God. The law shows how sinful we are before God, and that the only refuge is to trust the one who fulfiled the law.

12:41 PM  
Blogger Perezoso said...

""""The Bible is a primary souce document, so that it needs no proof. """"


Not exactly. That's what skeptics like Hume were opposing--the idea that scripture had some dogmatic status above all other types of knowledge. Hume's arguments contra-miracles were meant to call into question the dogmatic status.

"Primary source" a bit vague: it's not history ala Herodotus, or Plato's Republic, or Euclid, is it? I would say the Bible is a compendium of sorts, including some history (mostly jewish), some law (the retribution-code of Leviticus, etc) moral lessons (proverbs, Matthew, Pauls epistles etc), even a bit of poesy (psalms) and lots of spooky prophetic stuff (book of Rev.). And hardly consistent: JC, whoever he was, is no Old T. patriarch. JC seems more human in ways.

I suspect Nietzsche thought that: Christ the rebel-poet against the jewish law, but hardly welcome at the feast with Plato and Socrates and the hipsters of the Academy (or Roman court)--tho' the pagans had shortcomings as well.

Another thing: why do the roman historians barely even note Christianity, or even the jews, until like 200 AD, except as sort of add-ons to slave revolts? Probably because there were all sorts of mystery cults, and C-tianity was just one of many. It's not until like Constantine, 300 AD or so that the church starts rolling (after Augustine, really)--yet the empire also starting to crumble. Gibbon argued that Xtianity had a hand in the fall. Which is to say, the historical record apart from the Bible does not help the history-minded theologian.



"""": If a text mentions beings such as ghosts and deamons, then we are to dismiss the text because they are not real. So we have to dismiss Hume because in order to make the statement that we should dismiss fantastic claims he has to mention these claims, so that he refutes himself."""

Not really on point. He mentions them because they are in the text he addresses. He's not claiming ghosts exist: the ancient scribes of the Bible are. Another point: it's not necessarily the case that the testimony is accurate, as with any reports. In other words, it may be easier to believe (more reasonable) that a report is inaccurate (not necessarily a lie), than to believe an actual miracle occurred.

1:30 PM  
Blogger Perezoso said...

From Hume's "Enquiry":

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

8:01 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home