I've discussed the subject in other threads over the years, but only briefly, and the Zeitoun case has been getting a lot of attention lately. So, I want to expand upon my previous comments.
I still think the Zeitoun case involves genuine paranormal activity. And I still think it's best explained as non-Marian human psi (paranormal activity by one or more humans other than Mary).
I may go into the case in more depth in the future, but I want to make several points for now. Since Zeitoun has been getting so much attention in recent weeks, this is a good opportunity to get some of the relevant information to a larger audience.
One of Cameron Bertuzzi's videos on Zeitoun is an interview with Travis Dumsday. I recommend also listening to Jeffrey Mishlove's interview with Dumsday. Mishlove is, among other things, a paranormal researcher who used to host a program on PBS that addressed paranormal issues. In comparison to Cameron's interview, Mishlove's involves more discussion of the problems with the Zeitoun apparitions, parallels with other paranormal cases, potential non-Marian paranormal interpretations, etc. See, for example, the segments in the interview here and here.
I'm not trying to be exhaustive, but here are a few explanatory options that would be consistent with Protestantism:
- We could be agnostic about it. It would have to be sincere agnosticism, not just professing agnosticism while knowing that the evidence favors a particular view. And the agnosticism would have to be scrutinized, just like any other position.
- The appearance of a Protestant Mary, meaning a Mary consistent with Protestantism.
- Demonic activity.
- Non-Marian human psi.
There are multiple reasons for thinking the source of the Zeitoun phenomena isn't the Coptic Mary, the Roman Catholic Mary, or some other non-Protestant Mary. For discussions of the historical problems with something like a Coptic or Roman Catholic view of Mary, see the relevant articles linked here.
Some of the people commenting on Zeitoun have framed the discussion in terms of having extrabiblical evidence for Christianity, having photographic evidence in particular, and so forth. But we have a lot of that sort of evidence elsewhere. We have a lot of photographic, video, testimonial, archeological, and other types of extrabiblical evidence for some prophecy fulfillments (e.g., the Roman empire's destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, Jesus' influence over the Gentile world in fulfillment of Isaiah's Servant Songs), more than we have for Zeitoun. That sort of evidence for prophecy fulfillment would have to be accompanied by argumentation that addresses the objections that are raised against the appeal to prophecy, but the same is true of Zeitoun. When somebody like Cameron Bertuzzi reads Travis Dumsday's book on Zeitoun and concludes that the case is paranormal, he's doing so after reading a triple-digit number of pages providing information and argumentation. It's not as though you can simply hold up a photograph of the Zeitoun phenomena and have all of the relevant conclusions follow within a few seconds or a few minutes as an implication of looking at the photo. Rather, you need to consult sources, like Dumsday, who address the evidence pertaining to the provenance of the photos, the context surrounding them, what we should make of naturalistic explanations that have been offered for Zeitoun, etc. Zeitoun is better than the prophecy fulfillments in question in some ways, but I would argue that the evidence provided by prophecy fulfillment is better overall. In addition to the advantages mentioned above, these prophecies are more foundational to Christianity (they're part of the religion's foundational documents; Jesus associated himself with those documents and sometimes the prophecies in particular in significant ways; etc.), and that kind of prophecy fulfillment has larger implications than something like Zeitoun (the knowledge, power, and such involved in producing the fulfillments in question across such a large number and variety of contexts). And there are many other Christian miracles that have extrabiblical evidence in one way or another (healings with medical documentation, answered prayers accompanied by various forms of evidence, etc.).
It's sometimes suggested that attributing something like Zeitoun to human psi or demonic activity opens the door to dismissing Jesus' resurrection and other miracles that way. But the proponent of the human psi or demonic view of Zeitoun doesn't have to, and shouldn't, grant that something like Jesus' resurrection has equal or greater evidence against it or that Zeitoun has some of the strengths that something like Jesus' resurrection has in its favor (like the foundational nature of the resurrection). Within a Christian framework, you have to allow for a high degree of paranormal activity among non-Divine sources. Think of the activities of Pharaoh's magicians, what's done by the Antichrist and his associates in the book of Revelation, etc. We appeal to a greater degree of power for the Christian network of miracles (like Moses outperforming Pharoah's magicians and Christ outperforming Antichrist). I've discussed issues like these elsewhere. See, for example, my post from a few months ago here and the other posts linked within it. There's a hierarchy to Christian miracles, as discussed here, for example, and something like Jesus' resurrection is higher up in that hierarchy than something like Zeitoun. Whether Zeitoun has more witnesses, more photographic evidence, etc. is a distinct issue. As an illustration, think of the people who serve in two political offices. One is the mayor of a city, and the other is the governor of a state. Even if you have better evidence for the existence and activities of the mayor (because you're the mayor, because he's a close friend, or whatever), that doesn't change the fact that the governor has more authority, has more influence on society, and so forth. Zeitoun has better evidence than Jesus' resurrection in some ways, and the resurrection has better evidence in some ways (as acknowledged by Dumsday in his interview with Cameron), but the resurrection is more foundational. Within a Christian framework, Zeitoun is highly expendable. The resurrection isn't. The resurrection and its network of associated miracles is greater than any rival network, and it's greater by a large margin. That makes more sense under a traditional Christian understanding of Divine revelation than under something like a scenario in which Christian miracles are human psi or demonic.
I'm in the process of reading Dumsday's book and would be interested in hearing why you prefer a psi hypothesis to taking the evidence at face value as an apparition of the Virgin Mary. We should also consider the healings associated with the apparitions, not just the visible phenomena. Are you proposing that human psi can heal in an apparently miraculous way?
ReplyDeleteI'm wary of not taking evidence at face value without good reason since it prevents one from changing his mind in light of the evidence. The knee-jerk reaction of some Protestants to claim the apparitions are demonic in nature is one such example (that ironically parallels certain Jewish reactions to Jesus driving out demons). No reason is given for this conclusion other than its bare possibility.
As far as I know, Mary gives no verbal message in these apparitions, so it is hard to see how the apparitions are evidence for a particular denomination or sect of Christianity. I find it doubtful that God or Mary only works miracles for people with perfect theology (e.g., the disciples witnessed miracles before the resurrection without perfect theology). It might make sense to think of the apparitions as evidence for Christianity in general since they occurred at a church (not a mosque) and, if I recall correctly, the figure sometimes bowed before the cross and the birds sometimes flew in a cross formation. The latter points conflict with the traditional Islamic view that Jesus did not die by crucifixion.
With respect to your last paragraph, my concern with appealing to human psi too quickly does not concern the quality of evidence or the hierarchy of miracles within Christianity. My concern is that if you don't take evidence at face value you can interpret the evidence however you want in order to fit your preconceived ideas. A non-Christian believer in psi can replace the entire Christian framework with a psi framework. I recall an individual I spoke with who said that if he was convinced Jesus was raised from the dead he would prefer the aliens-raised-him-from-the-dead hypothesis to the God-raised-him-from-the-dead hypothesis because he at least knows material beings exist. This seems a clear case of not taking the evidence at face value but forcing it into his naturalistic ideas. He can take apparent evidence for God's existence and reinterpret it, thus making it near impossible for him to change his mind regarding God's existence. One might also think of Muslim witnesses to the Zeitoun apparitions. If a psi hypothesis works, why question Islam or consider Christianity in light of the apparitions?
My previous posts on Zeitoun and the one at the start of this thread address some of the issues you're raising. My last paragraph above links some posts in which I discuss why explaining Christianity as human psi or demonic would make less sense than viewing Christianity as a Divine revelation. Something like a Marian apparition only has a tangential relationship to Christianity's network of miracles, whereas something like Jesus' resurrection or fulfilled prophecy is foundational or much closer to the foundation than a Marian apparition. Given the evidential nature of the Christian network of miracles, as explained in my original post in this thread and the other posts linked there (a network of miracles that's better than its rivals by a wide margin), a Divine explanation of Christianity makes more sense than a human psi or demonic explanation. You can think a human psi hypothesis or demonic hypothesis best explains something like a Marian apparition without an implication that Christianity as a whole is best explained that way, since a Marian apparition is so much at the periphery at best. By contrast, there would be a more significant implication to applying a human psi or demonic explanation to something like Jesus' resurrection.
DeleteAny non-Protestant Marian interpretation of Zeitoun is going to have the problems I cited with the historical evidence against a non-Protestant view of Mary. A Protestant Marian interpretation would conflict with the apparitions' affiliation with a Coptic church. As my articles on the historical evidence pertaining to Mary demonstrate, there are major historical problems with a Coptic view of Mary. I agree that Mary could appear in connection with a Coptic church anyway, much as the Divine healing of a Presbyterian wouldn't necessarily mean that there's Divine approval of everything Presbyterians believe, a Divine answer to a Methodist's prayer wouldn't necessarily mean that God is thereby showing agreement with everything in that Methodist's faith and practice, etc. That's why I allowed for a Protestant Mary as a potential explanation of Zeitoun, though I don't think it's the best explanation. The Coptic setting is a problem for a Protestant Marian interpretation, even though it isn't an insurmountable problem. And for something like the Roman Catholic Marian interpretation, the situation is even worse. Not only does the Coptic setting conflict with Roman Catholicism, but there are all of the historical problems with the Roman Catholic view of Mary as well. Furthermore, the behavior of the apparitions makes more sense as human psi than as Mary, as discussed in my previous posts on Zeitoun. I'll probably get into this subject more in the future, but I'll briefly summarize a few points for now. The apparitions don't seem to have served much of a purpose, especially relative to the long span of time over which they occurred. The apparitions didn't communicate much. (Imagine if Jesus' resurrection appearances had lasted for a few years, but with as little communication as we have with Zeitoun. The larger degree of communication that we see in the resurrection narratives is more credible.) The apparitions also didn't move much, were often unclear, were sometimes perceived significantly differently by different people involved, etc. Some of these things could be explained well under some circumstances (like Saul of Tarsus and his companions being positioned differently on the road to Damascus, resulting in their perceiving things differently to some extent), but these things seem to happen too often with Zeitoun. There are a lot of parallels with other paranormal phenomena, including types of phenomena likely to involve human psi. The willingness to be filmed sometimes while avoiding being filmed on other occasions, for example, is one of the parallels I have in mind, and it seems unlikely to be something we'd get with Mary. Again, I'll probably write more about issues like these later.
DeleteRegarding healings, yes, I think healings can occur through something like human psi. There are reports of healing in paranormal contexts outside of Christianity. That could take on various forms, like a capacity to heal that somebody has had throughout his life or something that was acquired at some point by whatever means (e.g., through a paranormal experience). Similarly, Luke 11:19 likely refers to exorcisms performed by unbelievers. Revelation 13:3 refers to a demonic healing. There are some significant problems with Coptic Christianity, but I agree with them on most issues. There's a lot of common ground. So, in a Coptic setting, I would allow for some Divine miracles as well, whether performed directly by God or indirectly through somebody who had been given a power to heal by God. Healing makes more sense under a Marian view of Zeitoun, but I only consider that moderately problematic for a human psi hypothesis. The problems with a Marian hypothesis are weightier.
I understand a lot more could be said about explanations for different kinds of events (e.g., Marian apparitions, the resurrection, fulfilled prophecy) and don't have the time to discuss it further (although I generally agree with what you're saying while trying to avoid denying the straightforward interpretation of the evidence without good reason). Based on my reading of the Zeitoun apparitions so far, I see little reason to prefer a psi hypothesis to the Mary hypothesis. I suppose there are some phenomena similar to some paranormal phenomena but I'm not sure that's enough to prefer the psi hypothesis. Granted, I have not read enough on psi to know if it's plausible as an hypothesis for other paranormal phenomena, so I'm skeptical.
DeleteTo be clear, I am a Protestant and merely adopting the simple Mary hypothesis as the best explanation. I am not proposing a Coptic, non-Protestant, or even Protestant Mary hypothesis. While you think the apparitions occurring at a Coptic church is a surmountable problem, I think the occurrence at a Coptic church is not much of a problem at all given the behavior of the apparition. As far as I know, there is nothing distinctively Coptic about the apparition's behavior.
It is also worth noting that on some occasions the young Jesus was said to be with Mary! I'm not sure how that would fit with the psi hypothesis.
I agree the Zeitoun apparitions do not seem to have served a purpose in the sense that Mary never gave a verbal message to the crowds. She was understood to be blessing the crowds at times through her bodily motions. However, the apparitions may have had the effect of promoting peaceful relations between Egyptians, healing certain persons, and strengthening the faith of many (including the conversion of some Muslims to Christianity).
I am not sure how accurate it is to say the apparitions didn't move much. Dumsday notes the figure exhibited a variety of apparently intelligent behaviors, such as bowing to the crowd, moving its head as a sign of greeting, kneeling at the cross on the roof, and holding up what appeared to be an olive branch. An eyewitness account from Bishop Athanasius mentions the figure looking to the north, waving her hand, blessing the people (sometimes in his direction, which suggests it sometimes looked in a different direction). He says her garments swayed in the wind. Eyewitness Dr. William Nashed Zaki, who was also healed of a hernia, says the figure moved towards the cross, then stretched out her right hand and blessed them. The bird figures are said to move or fly. Various light phenomena (for lack of a better term) also moved or changed shapes. This is by no means intended as an exhaustive list. If movement is evidence against the psi hypothesis then this is a problem.
Admittedly witnesses may have perceived things differently at times. But keep in mind the apparitions were not the same every night and the appearance of the apparition or lights could change over the course of a single appearance. For example, it might start with clouds, then something like fluorescent lamps would illuminate the sky, and finally the full figure would appear. In other words, someone viewing the apparitions one day might see something different than someone viewing the apparitions on another day. And someone viewing the apparitions at 11 pm might see something different than someone viewing the apparitions at midnight the same night. Then there are the obvious issues of distance and viewing angle. Someone on the east side of the church might see the figure but someone on the west side of the church could not because they didn't have a line of sight. For a time, trees could obstruct the view of some. There was also jostling in the crowd.
Apparitions are widespread in paranormal contexts, including in many that seem to be best explained as human psi. And the apparitions often involve a lot of movement. I didn't bring up the movement issue because non-Divine paranormal activity or human psi in particular involves lack of movement. Rather, I brought up lack of movement as reason to doubt a Marian interpretation. The lack of movement suggests a lower rather than higher level of paranormal activity. I was aware that the Zeitoun phenomena moved to some extent, but you have to judge the amount of movement relative to the context. (The same is true of other characteristics, like the amount of communication, as discussed in my last post.) As I mentioned earlier, these apparitions occurred over a few years. Another issue that's relevant to this timespan issue is the Coptic setting of the apparitions. Given the degree to which Coptic Christianity is wrong in its view of Mary and on other issues and the amount of time Mary was going to appear, the choice of a Coptic church is a significant problem. If a Marian interpretation is correct, this isn't comparable to something like God healing a Presbyterian on one occasion and answering the prayer of a Methodist on another occasion. Rather, a Marian interpretation would involve giving a few years of appearances and other activities to a church (not an individual) that's substantially more in error than a Presbyterian or Methodist individual. The errors of that church include its view of Mary, and it's wrong on those issues to a larger rather than smaller degree. Giving Marian apparitions to a church like that could happen, but is problematic, especially if the activities are going to last for years.
DeleteConcerning differences in what people reported seeing, I've explained that I allow for some variation without considering the differences problematic or doubting a Marian interpretation in particular. I mentioned Paul and his companions on the road to Damascus as an illustration. The issue here is the degree to which it occurs with Zeitoun and some of the specific contexts involved. In the Mishlove interview linked above, Dumsday discusses some of the occasions when different people perceived different things (or got different results when using a camera, for example), even though there seems to be no normal explanation for that difference.
Again, I'll probably get into issues like these more in the future.
Here's some further discussion of Zeitoun and the resurrection.
ReplyDelete