IMAGES: 

Miracle pictures in Islam http://www.islamcan.com/miracles/index.shtml

Virgin Mary on Wall  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4468275.stm

Virgin Mary on Toast $28,000 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm

Nun Bun or Mother Theresa Bun stolen http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4562170.stm

Pareidolia  http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/129

Miracle Tortilla http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/1016

The human ability to interpret essentially random patterns of images or sounds as some recognizable image or sound or pattern is known as pareidolia, a type of illusion or misperception involving a vague or obscure stimulus being perceived as something known and that is clear and distinct.  This is demonstrated by humans thinking that they see the image of a man in the surface of the moon once prompted to look at it that way or perhaps arriving at the pattern on their own.  Similarly looking at clouds in order to see what patterns they may contain or suggest that resemble animals or some other well known shapes.  The images , known as simulacra, are identified by the brain with some prior image or pattern.

"Pareidolia is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant."     Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

See further:

• Religious Perceptions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptions_of_religious_imagery_in_natural_phenomena

• Simulacrum  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum

• Pareidolia  chttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

"Carl Sagan hypothesized that as a survival technique, human beings are "hard-wired" from birth to identify the human face. This allows people to use only minimal details to recognize faces from a distance and in poor visibility but can also lead them to interpret random images or patterns of light and shade as being faces."

And for the science part, an interesting article -on facial recognition : "the Selectivity of the Occipitotemporal M170 for faces" in Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology , Vol. 11 No 27 February 2000.   http://web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/media/pdfs/LiuHiguchiMarantzKanwisherNReport.pdf

The phenomena is demonstrated in what people think that they see in clouds, windows with condensation on them, ink blots, or even on food items such as beans or in bagels or on cinnamon buns or grilled cheese sandwiches and the like.  The phenomena is also observed with sounds with what is known as Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) or "white noise" or in a popular form known as "Raudive voices". When people think that they hear a sound or see an image that does not exist at all the mental phenomena is known as apophenia,  the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness of unrelated phenomena. The term was coined by K. Conrad in 1958 .   When looking at tables of numbers or looking at statistical reports and finding some special message or significance in those figures , apophenia is called a Type I error.  It is highly probable that apophenia is involved in a number of reports of phenomena that cannot be confirmed with empirical investigations such as  those falling into the realm of the spiritual, supernatural or paranormal,  including apparent appearances of ghosts or reports of events that are attributed to a haunting , Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) or "white noise", perhaps in forms of numerology and in claims about deciphering messages in large amounts of text such as with the Bible Code claims.   People tend to "read into" text what they want to find there in the case of large amounts of text such as the Bible or in vaguely phrased texts such as the work of Nostradamus.

In the context of religion with these phenomena people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.

: The Burden of Proof

You cannot claim that "miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."  The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is a fallacy to claim that X exists unless you prove that there is no X.  What is improper is for a person to claim that "X exists" and when asked to prove it the person who made the claim uses as a defense of "X exists" the claim next claim that no one has proven that X does not exist.

IMPORTANT!!!!!    READ: The Burden of Proof

What is the best way to proceed when there is a report of some appearance of a religious figure on a wall or pancake, etc...  Should the process favor a more natural explanation until proven otherwise?

 

The best explanation would be the one that has the best fit with facts or the explanation that is best supported by claims that are themselves each well supported by other well supported claims. This is a process of explanation that rests heavily on the use of reason and the insistence on evidence to support claims about physical events or a physical state of affairs.  So any appearance of any phenomena that is detectable by the senses should have an explanation concerning how the physical state of affairs has come about to produce that appearance to human senses.  The burden of proof concerning physical claims is with those making the positive assertion.

 

The explanation must also avoid the pattern of thinking that if one cannot prove that X is not the cause then X is the cause.  One can not appeal to the absence of evidence or proof as constituting the basis for any conclusions.  If one cannot prove what caused phenomenon P then one must withhold accepting the conclusion that any particular cause C is the cause of P.

 

If there is a claim that phenomenon N (natural event-perceived by the senses) was caused by factor S (supernatural cause) then there needs to be evidence to support the claim.

 

So the explanation of an event such as the appearance of a figure resembling what someone thinks of as a figure from religious history would need to have evidence to support it.  In the absence of physical evidence, then the preponderance of the evidence is support of explanations of phenomena of a similar type might be given "preferred" status until subsequent evidence supports another conclusion.

 

Using the resort of a supernatural explanation has so many "gaps " in that it is less preferred in the absence of strong evidence in support of a naturalistic explanation or the holding of the expectation of a naturalistic explanation to be forthcoming. The supernatural explanation has no physical evidence (natural) to support it and no explanation of how it is that non-physical entities cause physical events in the natural realm.

 

There is also the very important question to be answered in this particular case of why it is that anyone alive thinks that they known just what Mary looked like.  Why assume that the image is the image of any particular historical or or mythical entity?  This is a case of a simulacrum.

 

The use of the reasoning pattern :

 

If you can not explain the event or phenomena by use of a natural explanation then it is a supernaturally caused event involving the spiritual or supernatural beings A B, C, etc...

 

is both illogical and generated by and rests upon faith that is held to sustain hope.  This is a habit of mind that is quite strong as it has consequences thought to be beneficial by the holder of the habit.

http://relfrauds.www4.50megs.com/christianity/miracleclaims.html
http://www.csicop.org/articles/19990121-audrey-santo/index.html
http://www.csicop.org/
http://www.skeptiseum.org/ http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth19.html
http://skepdic.com/miracles.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/

http://www.mcn.org/1/Miracles/

http://www.homestead.com/whitebuffalomiracle/index.html

http://www.mcn.org/1/Miracles/aids.html