RE: Doubt in disbelief
January 23, 2017 at 2:01 pm
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2017 at 2:05 pm by Simon Moon.)
(January 23, 2017 at 12:53 pm)sneroul the thinker Wrote: possibly they changed some things but 70000 people is a hard lie and there is photo's of the crowd
These were not skeptics, they were Catholics, expecting to see a miracle, or else they wouldn't have been there.
Just a small amount of research on how faulty the human memory can be, and our need to confirm the consensus of our peers, should give you an inkling of how such a story can be created.
From an article on skeptoid.com:
"Most of what's popularly reported about the sun incident, such as the colors and the spinning, comes from Father John de Marchi, a Catholic priest who spent years interviewing eyewitnesses to build evidence supporting the miraculous event. But more objective assessments of the eyewitness accounts have found very little evidence of a single shared experience. Author Kevin McClure, who also compiled eyewitness accounts, reported that he had "never seen such a collection of contradictory accounts in any of the research I have done in the past 10 years." If you were there, as a devout Catholic (otherwise you wouldn't be there), you fully believed in a miracle happening that day (otherwise you wouldn't be there), whether you personally saw anything or not you'd support the majority opinion, and probably go to your grave insisting that a miracle happened there. There's no surprise that Father de Marchi was able to form a consensus description of a spinning color wheel of a sun, and no need for any actual event to justify his consensus."
So, please don't think you are thinking critically about this alleged 'evidence' for a god you think you have found.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.