One major attack against the resurrection is that Jesus’ appearances were psychological “visions” that were “unexpected… moving… [and] convincing.”[1] In this view, the resurrection is either a hallucination, illusion, or delusion. Many articles and books have countered the idea that the resurrection is a hallucination or delusion, but there are few sources that deal with the resurrection as an illusion.[2] This paper will refute the claim that the resurrection appearances are cognitive/optical illusions resulting from confirmation or myside bias.
The first section will present characteristics of cognitive illusions in general, then define the specific subset of illusions called confirmation or myside bias. The second section will demonstrate that Marian apparitions could be confirmation or myside illusions. The third section will compare the resurrection appearances to the Marian apparitions to demonstrate that they were not caused by confirmation or myside illusions.
Cognitive illusions are a class of mental phenomena which lead “to a perception, judgment, or memory that reliably deviates from ‘reality.’”[3] “Optical and memory illusions” defy scrutiny and are easily discredited through comparison to “external or original stimuli.”[4] For example, “frequency judgments,” or repeated experiences contrary to the initial illusion, are extremely powerful defeaters of most cognitive illusions.[5] For cognitive illusions to take hold, the perceived phenomenon must “deviate from the normative standard in a systematic fashion… rather than just randomly.”[6] However, most illusions do not meet this standard as they “include a number of probabilistic processes” ensuring that the phenomenon in question “will not necessarily be observed on each and every single trial.”[7]
Additionally, cognitive illusions occur outside the realm of normal human experience; when an illusion occurs “our curiosity is piqued” and the event draws attention to itself.[8] Often people attempt to justify these illusions through strongly held, false presumptions about the world and irrelevant data.[9] Others fall prey to illusion due to potential benefit from the illusion or because they lack the necessary “knowledge base” to assess the illusion.[10] In these cases, “illusion is hard if not impossible to avoid” and people will succumb to illusions without “realiz[ing] what has happened.”[11] Thus, before asserting that a phenomenon is the cause of a “special mechanism” it is important to evaluate all extraordinary events using modern knowledge “about cognitive processes in general.”[12]
One of the two illusions most pertinent to discussions of Marian apparitions and resurrection appearances is confirmation bias. Francis Bacon linked confirmation bias with “superstitions” stating that “though there be a greater number and weight of instances… on the other side… the authority of [one’s] former conclusions remain[s] inviolate.”[13] Confirmation bias is “the seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or a hypothesis in hand.”[14] This illusion starts in an individual or small group but can quickly cause “polarization of opinion” in larger groups, leading to “the persistence of discredited beliefs.”[15] Thus, even in the face of contrary evidence, people affected by confirmation bias will refuse to acknowledge the truth.
People under confirmation illusions exhibit a standard set of behaviors. First, they tend to refuse to consider other possible explanations for the perceived phenomenon.[16] Second, they give a greater weight to evidence that supports their current belief.[17] Third, they position themselves to have experiences that will verify their current belief.[18] Fourth, they have a habit of “seeing what one is looking for,” leading to overly concrete reports of their experiences.[19] Additionally, mental health is affected by confirmational illusion as it reinforces depressive thoughts and can cause depression.[20] These behaviors can be used to identify people under confirmation illusion.
With confirmation illusions, there is a “general tendency to confirm whatever one thinks about,” thus a thought can be cemented into a belief.[21] Myside bias is a subset of confirmation illusions in which people have a tendency “to find arguments that support [their] own views.”[22] In order for myside bias to occur, one must already have a belief in place in order to be biased toward it. This distinction is important because illusions can develop from either strongly held beliefs of an individual or the strong beliefs of a group imposed upon an individual. Additionally, myside bias illusions are not linked to intelligence.[23] Whether a person is a doctor or an illiterate farmer, he or she is susceptible to these illusions because they are not connected to current models of “rational thinking.”[24] However, it is important to remember that education can contribute to a person’s background knowledge which does inhibit cognitive illusions from occurring.
The following two sections will assess both Marian apparitions and resurrection appearances to see if it is possible for them to have been caused by confirmation and myside illusions. First, the seers themselves will be assessed by examining their ages, levels of education, and personal histories of trauma – all of which feed into one’s susceptibility to cognitive illusions. Second, the vision reports will be assessed to determine if they fit the criteria under which confirmation and myside illusions occur.
Throughout history, people who claim to see Marian apparitions “have tended to be illiterate and poor girls.”[25] For example, in La Salette, France, “two shepherd children” claimed that they encountered an apparition together.[26] The girl, Mélanie, was known for being “extremely lazy, disobedient, and sullen.” Additionally, she “would not respond when spoken to” and “could not read” at fourteen years old.[27] The boy, Maximin, “could not read” either and met Mélanie only a day or two prior to the first Marian vision.[28]
A second example of Marian apparitions comes from Lourdes, France, where a fourteen-year-old girl saw a bright light near a mill by the river.[29] She spent most of her childhood in a “dungeon” while “gathering wood, scrap iron, and bones” to sell in order to help her family survive.[30] As her family was extremely poor, she did not receive a good education in her childhood.
The final Marian apparition under study concerns a ten-year-old girl, Lucia, from Fatima, Portugal.[31] Lucia received a better education than most Marion seers. She was taught “to sing and dance,” and by self-report had an eidetic memory for auditory information.[32] Additionally, she was given to theatrics throughout her childhood and in descriptions of her visions.[33] In summary, only one of the children had an adequate education and all of them came from poor or impoverished backgrounds.
The poor and uneducated nature of many Marian visionaries puts them at risk for susceptibility to confirmation illusions. They lack the necessary background knowledge to adequately determine the difference between phenomena like naturally occurring “bright light[s]” and experiences that are authentic visions.[34] Additionally, being uncritical children, none of them had the tools to properly compare their experiences to similar stimuli in different situations. Thus, they lacked the ability to properly discriminate reality from illusion with any confidence.
The seers’ childhoods are a substantial contributing factor to their susceptibility to confirmation illusions. Each seer had endured a variety of traumatic experiences that may have served as the basis for the foundational beliefs that led to the Marian apparitions. First, Mélanie experienced familial abuse throughout her childhood and was “rejected and probably emotionally isolated” by her parents.[35] In one particularly harrowing incident, Mélanie reported that she was “locked out of her house for days at a time” and “kept company by her heavenly brother, Jesus.”[36] Maximin also struggled with parental neglect as his mother died when he was a baby and his father “was reportedly absent from the family for long periods of time.”[37] Their need for love, comfort, care, and protection is sufficient to doubt their ability to properly weigh evidence concerning visions which addressed those needs. Additionally, their belief in Mary and Jesus made them susceptible to interpreting irregular phenomena as personal appearances.
Second, Bernadette Soubirous, who had the vision at Lourdes, also had a strained childhood that was marked by “misfortune, ill health, and poverty.”[38] Her family was not trusted in the community, blamed and imprisoned for theft, and continually discriminated against.[39] Bernadette also struggled with formalized religion and was unable to learn the Catechism properly, earning her criticism from her family’s employer.[40] The severity of her rejection may have served as the basis for her vision, after which she stated that “there can be nothing for me on this earth; she has promised me a place in the kingdom of the elect.”[41] As with the other children, her vision directly met a long felt need and confirmed a long held belief that she should have a better life, thus putting her at risk of myside illusions.
Finally, Lucia also had her share of humiliating and defamatory experiences as a child that directly tie to her visions. For instance, her catechism experience was marked by “intense emotion,” ending with the humiliation of being denied communion.[42] Next, she was overheard while giving her first confession and had to endure the entire congregation laughing at her afterward.[43] Her visionary experiences directly correlate with her childhood history. For instance, in her published “secrets,” she recounts how she took communion from an angel. This vision can be interpreted as the fulfillment of a belief or wish that her first communion was a better experience. In summary, all of the visions experienced by the Marian seers have correlation to the traumatic events of their pasts and as such may be the result of a myside illusion.
Marian visions are characterized by vagueness and an inability to quickly ascertain the identity of the apparition. For example, during their first visitation, Mélanie and Maximin claimed they “had seen a beautiful lady” but were not aware of the name of the lady.[44] Mélanie stated that she saw a “light that whirled a bit and seemed to turn in on itself, rising to the height of a person.”[45] Additionally, even though she was able to “make out an oval face and hands” she was still unable to identify the image.[46]
During the visitation, the apparition was reported to have given commands that reflect general Catholic, Biblical, and Christian teachings, yet they were still unable to identify the image. For example, the apparition mentioned the six day work week based on creation, “Lent,” “Mass,” and that people had “swore… [and] introduced the name of my son.”[47] Rather than being convinced that the apparition was Mary, the children thought “she was a great saint” or that “the woman had a husband who wanted to kill her son.”[48] In conjunction with confirmation illusions, the possibility that they had seen the Virgin Mary did not originate from the children; rather, it came as a suggestion from “the mother of Mélanie’s employer,” and led to immediate declaration in the local church.
The circumstances around which Mélanie and Maximin became convinced that the apparition was Mary correlate heavily with confirmation and myside bias illusions. First, the vision was insufficient on its own for the children to assert its identity. The vague Catholic content of the vision, coupled with the overzealous “appropria[tion]” of the experiences by the Catholic church and townspeople could easily have given Mélanie and Maximin the belief that their apparition was Mary, which would have colored their future interpretations.[49] Additionally, Mélanie and Maximin had an increased motivation to interpret their visions as Marian due to their previous neglect contrasted with the fame that being seers would bring to themselves and their families. The initial confusion surrounding the apparition’s identity also provided the necessary ambiguity required for conformation illusions to take place, as any ability to physically investigate the vision directly would have led to either its falsification or confirmation of identity regardless of external bias.
The vision at Lourdes also exhibits many of the hallmarks of confirmation illusions. First, Bernadette’s initial visionary experience was of “’something white’ [that] had the shape of a young girl” and whom she called “aquero” or “little one.”[50] The apparition said nothing during the first vision and refused to give its identity during the second vision. Initially, Bernadette and another villager thought that the apparition might have been a recently deceased child; however, after having visions on twelve of fifteen consecutive days, the people of the village and the local newspaper thought the visions were of Mary and hinted that “Bernadette herself suggested this identification.”[51]
This regular repetition of visions aligns with the requirement that confirmation illusions are repeatable occurrences that ingrain the validity of the illusion in the observer. Concurrent with the identification of the vision as Mary, Bernadette was elevated to being “the interpreter if… not the image of a superior power.”[52] By asserting that the identity of “aquero” was Mary she received substantial attention and influence. This benefit provided the cognitive impetus for the formation of a myside illusion.
Finally, the visions at Fatima displayed a similar character to other Marian apparitions. The initial appearance to Lucia and her cousins was of a hovering figure who looked “like ‘a statue made of snow’ and was [made] ‘almost transparent by the rays of the sun.’”[53] The children made no attempt at an identification during the initial visions. Lucia herself stated that “she was not sure that the ‘pretty little woman’ they saw was really the Virgin.”[54] Lucia’s early visions were met with derision, taunts, and criticism from family members. Shortly thereafter, Lucia began referring to the vision as “Our Lady” and identifying her as the Virgin Mary.[55] This gave her considerable popularity with her followers who were quickly growing in number and were a source of external validation and admiration.[56] Thus, like the other seers, the identification of the vision as Mary started out due to external circumstances and then may have solidified through confirmation illusion. The lack of initial identification provided fruitful ground for confirmation illusion to take hold in the minds of all of the Marian visionaries.
None of the Marian seers reported that they were able to interact with the visions beyond sight and sound. Additionally, all of the visions were ethereal in nature, and non-corporeal. For example, the Marian vision at La Salette was of a “whirl[ing]” being that was made of “light.”[57] Similarly, the Lourdes apparition had an amorphous shape that appeared to look somewhat like “a young girl.”[58] It also refused physical contact and interaction with physical objects when it was asked to write using “paper and pen.”[59] Finally, the Fatima apparition appeared as “a statue made of snow” that was “rendered almost transparent by the rays of the sun.”[60] Both the Lourdes and Fatima visions were made in public in front of other people who did not see or experience anything other than the seers’ reactions to the visions.[61]
The non-physical and private nature of the visions made the seers susceptible to confirmation illusions. Illusions can only hold if there is no way to compare them to the real world.[62] Since these illusions occurred in a way that prohibited direct examination, their interpretation is left completely up to the seers who had the vision. Additionally, none of the visions directly affected physical reality. This allowed them to avoid negative tests for truth that could have discounted them as being illusions. Also, the avoidance exhibited by the Lourdes apparition ensured that discounting evidence would be ignored. In conclusion, though it cannot be demonstrated that the Marian apparitions are cognitive illusions, their nature and the lives of the seers who saw them indicate a high likelihood that confirmation or myside illusions played a part in their interpretation.
Unlike the seers of the Marian apparitions, the biographical material surrounding the disciples of Christ is more fragmentary and legendary. However, from this material there are general conclusions that can be made concerning the disciples with a high degree of certainty.
Theologian John MacArthur describes the twelve disciples as “perfectly ordinary, unexceptional men.”[63] The disciples were men who worked “full-time jobs” and lived relatively ordinary lives.[64] Matthew 4:18-22 records that Simon Peter, Andrew, James the son of Zebedee, and John were all employed fisherman at the time of their calling.[65] Thomas, Nathaniel, and Philip were most likely fisherman as well, according to their common associations and inclusion in the John 21 passage about returning to fishing as a profession.[66] Levi was a professional tax collector and wealthy enough to own his own house and hold “a great banquet for Jesus” while introducing him to a “large crowd.”[67] Though not much can be said for certain about the other disciples, it is known that they “left all [they] had to follow [Jesus].”[68]
It is highly likely that all of the disciples had a “thorough midrashic education” as it was broadly available to all men regardless of “strata.”[69] Though some of them may have been young men, none of the disciples were children and all were of the age where they were expected to be engaged members of society. Their education and ages are a marked distinction from the seers of the Marian apparitions. Thus, the disciples had the proper background knowledge to be able to resist confirmation illusions.
Trauma Surrounding Christ’s Death
The historical record does not document the childhood histories of the disciples, thus any trauma that may have occurred to them during their early years is lost to history. However, the gospel records do not show any indication of childhood abuse that manifested in abnormal psychology. Thus, this paper will assume that their early childhood did not contain significant trauma, thus reducing their susceptibility to confirmation illusions.
However, it is known that the disciples incurred severe trauma as a result of Christ’s death. While it is possible that this type of trauma could have caused bereavement hallucinations, it would not contribute to confirmation illusions because there was a genuine acceptance of Jesus’ death, not an expectation of resurrection.[70]
Unlike the Marian apparitions, all people who experienced Jesus after His resurrection experienced a fully identifiable human being, and very quickly came to know His identity as Jesus, the Messiah. For example, in Jesus’ first resurrection appearance, he approached Mary as merely “the gardener.”[71] There was no blinding light; there was no vague form; there was only what to her senses appeared to be a real human being standing before her. Even though she was unable to recognize Him at first, Jesus called her by her name in a way that caused “Mary [to] respond[] to his voice,” and immediately identify him as Jesus.[72] At no point did Mary question the identity of the person she saw after she heard her name. Additionally, Jesus’ identity did not come from an external source or a confirmation illusion. Her initial assumption that he was the gardener indicates that she was not primed for seeing Jesus resurrected. Confirmation illusions require that a person must already hold the particular belief upon which the illusion is based.
Second, the account of Thomas the disciple is strong evidence that he was not suffering from a confirmation illusion during his resurrection encounter. Initially, Thomas sees Jesus but declares that if he doesn’t “see the mark of the nails in His hands, put [his] finger into the mark of the nails, and put [his] hand into His side, [he] will never believe!”[73] Thomas’ skepticism was opposed to the circumstances required for confirmation illusion. Additionally, during the experience, Jesus “commands Thomas to do exactly what he had demanded when presented with the witness of the disciples.”[74] After doing so, Thomas declared, “My Lord and my God!”[75] This instantaneous confirmation and acceptance of Jesus’ identity, contrary to expectation, discredits confirmation illusion as a viable explanation.
Third, though the disciples did not immediately recognize Jesus at the Sea of Tiberius, His identity was confirmed during the appearance in an unusual way. Peter became convinced of Jesus’ identity by a direct miracle that he physically experienced: the miracle of the large catch of fish. In contrast, when the apparition of Lourdes was asked to complete a similar task in order to demonstrate its identity – to miraculously make a rose bush bloom – the request was met with a rejection. That Jesus’ identity was confirmed immediately within the appearance itself by a nature miracle is strong evidence that confirmation illusion, which requires vagueness, did not influence the disciples.
Unlike the Marian apparitions, the resurrection appearances of Jesus often came with physical interactions. For example, unlike the Lourdes apparition which refused to interact with physical objects, the appearance of Jesus to Thomas invited him to touch the physical wounds in His body. Though it is uncertain that Thomas actually touched Jesus, Jesus’ invitation is contrary to non-physical visions.[76] Thomas’ ability to scrutinize Jesus’ resurrected body rules out confirmation illusion as a physical test would have broken the illusion.
Second, Jesus’ resurrection appearance on the Sea of Tiberius exhibited a number of physical interactions. First, in John 21:23, Jesus took the bread and fish from the disciples and shared a meal with them. Second, far from being a distant light, Jesus was seen and interacted with by many people present. Third, unlike the Marian apparitions which were experienced only by a few, Jesus’ resurrection experiences were sometimes directly experienced by over 500 people at one time.[77] This level of physicality is incompatible with confirmation illusions as such close examination over a number of different occurrences would dispel any illusion that may have occurred.
In conclusion, the resurrection appearances of Jesus are not likely to be confirmation or myside illusions. Unlike the Marian seers, the disciples were working adult men who had an appropriate level of education to evaluate concrete reality. Additionally, the resurrection appearances contain distinct physical interactions which invite investigation, making illusion highly unlikely. Third, the resurrection appearances were always understood to be Jesus. In contrast, the Marian apparitions were vague, which allowed people to speculate on the identity of the vision, making the seers more susceptible confirmation illusion. As with hallucinations and delusions, illusions are incapable of accounting for the data of the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, the resurrection hypothesis withstands the accusations of critics and remains the best explanation for the resurrection.
Anderson, William, H. U. “Jewish Education Around the Time of the New Testament (100 Bce-100 Ce).” Journal of Beliefs and Values 18, no. 2 (1997): 217–226.
Bacon, Francis. “Novum Organum.” In The English Philosophers from Bacon to Mill, edited by E. A. Burtt, 24–123. New York City, NY: Random House, 1939.
Beck, Aaron, T., and Brad Alford A. Depression: Causes and Treatment. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.
Carrier, Richard. “The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb.” In The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, edited by Robert Price M. and Jeffery Lowder J. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005.
Charness, Gary, and Chetan Dave. “Confirmation Bias with Motivated Beliefs.” Games and Economic Behavior 104 (2017): 1–23.
Clavat, M. Vie de Melanie, Bergere de La Salette. Paris, 1919.
Gigerenzer, G. “On Narrow Norms and Vague Heuristics: A Rebuttle to Kahneman and Tversky.” Psychological Review 103, no. 3 (July 1996): 592–596.
Habermas, Gary, and Michael Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004.
Hickling, S. Ross. An Evidentiary Analysis of Doctor Richard Carrier’s Objections to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christian Philosophy Today 20. Bonn, Germany: Verlag fur Kultur und Wissenschaft, 2018.
Klink, Edward W. John. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016.
Kondor, Louis. Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words. Stillriver, MA: Ravengate Press, 1976.
Krebs, Jill, M. “Contemporary Marian Apparitions and Devotional Cultures.” Religion Compass 11, no. 3–4 (April 2017): 1–9.
Laurentin, R. Bernadette of Lourdes. Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press, 1979.
———. Lourdes, Dossier Des Documents Authentiques, Vol. 1, Au Temps Des Seize Premieres Apparitions, 11 Fevrier-3 Avril 1858, 2nd Ed. Paris: Lethielleux, 1962.
———. Lourdes, Histoire Authentique. Vol. 2. L’enfance de Bernadette et les trois premieres apparitions, 7 janvier 1844-18 fevrier 1858. Paris: Lethielleux, 1962.
MacArthur, John. Twelve Ordinary Men: How the Master Shaped His Disciples for Greatness and What He Wants To Do with You. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2002.
de Marchi, J. Fatima: The Facts. Translated by I. M. Kingsbury. Cork, Ireland: Mercier Press, 1950.
———. The Immaculate Heart. Edited by W. Ray. New York City, NY: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1852.
Marques, Tiago Pires. “Extraordinary Order: Fatima, Religious Affects and the Catholic Political Imagination in Portugual, c.1910-1950.” Portuguese Journal of Social Science 13, no. 3 (2014): 253–268.
Martins, A. M., ed. Novos Documentos. Sao Paulo, Brazil: Edicoes Loyola, 1984.
Mercier, Hugo. Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing Phenomena in Judgment, Thinking and Memory. Edited by Reudiger Pohl F. London, U.K.: Psychology Press, 2016.
Nickerson, R. S. “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomena in Many Guises.” Review of General Psychology 2 (1998): 175–220.
Pohl, Reudiger, F. Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing Phenomena in Judgment, Thinking and Memory. Edited by Reudiger Pohl F. London, U.K.: Psychology Press, 2016.
Roediger, H.L. III. “Memory Illusions.” Journal of Memory and Language 35 (1996): 76–100.
Stanovich, Keith, E. “Distinguishing the Reflective, Algorithmic, and Autonomous Minds: Is It Time for a Tri-Process Theory?” In In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond, edited by Jonathan Evans and Keith Frankish. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Stanovich, Keith, E., Richard West F., and Maggie Toplak E. “Myside Bias, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 22, no. 4 (2013): 259–264.
Stern, J. La Salette: Documents Authentiques: Dossier Chronologique Integral Vol. 1, Septembre 1846-Debut Mars 1847. Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1980.
———. La Salette: Documents Authentiques: Dossier Chronologique Integral Vol. 2, Le Proces de l’Apprition Fin Mars 1847-Avril 1849. Paris: Cerf, 1984.
Zimdars-Swartz, Sandra, L. Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991.
[1] Richard Carrier, “The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, ed. Robert Price M. and Jeffery Lowder J. (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005), 2458, Kindle.
[2] Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 951-957, Kindle.
[3] Reudiger Pohl F., Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing Phenomena in Judgment, Thinking and Memory, ed. Reudiger Pohl F. (London, U.K.: Psychology Press, 2016), 4.
[4] Ibid.
[5] G. Gigerenzer, “On Narrow Norms and Vague Heuristics: A Rebuttle to Kahneman and Tversky,” Psychological Review 103, no. 3 (July 1996): n.p.
[6] Pohl, Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing Phenomena in Judgment, Thinking and Memory, 4.
[7] Ibid.
[8] H.L. III Roediger, “Memory Illusions,” Journal of Memory and Language 35 (1996): 76.
[9] Keith Stanovich E., “Distinguishing the Reflective, Algorithmic, and Autonomous Minds: Is It Time for a Tri-Process Theory?,” in In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond, ed. Jonathan Evans and Keith Frankish (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2009), 70.
[10] Ibid, 76-77.
[11] Pohl, Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing Phenomena in Judgment, Thinking and Memory, 4.
[12] Ibid, 5.
[13] Francis Bacon, “Novum Organum,” in The English Philosophers from Bacon to Mill, ed. E. A. Burtt (New York City, NY: Random House, 1939), 36.
[14] R. S. Nickerson, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomena in Many Guises,” Review of General Psychology 2 (1998): 175.
[15] Gary Charness and Chetan Dave, “Confirmation Bias with Motivated Beliefs,” Games and Economic Behavior 104 (2017): 2.
[16] Nickerson, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomena in Many Guises,” 177.
[17] Ibid, 178.
[18] Ibid, 179.
[19] Ibid, 181.
[20] Aaron Beck T. and Brad Alford A., Depression: Causes and Treatment, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), 298.
[21] Hugo Mercier, Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing Phenomena in Judgment, Thinking and Memory, ed. Reudiger Pohl F. (London, U.K.: Psychology Press, 2016), 99.
[22] Ibid, 100.
[23] Keith Stanovich E., Richard West F., and Maggie Toplak E., “Myside Bias, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 22, no. 4 (2013): 259.
[24] Ibid, 263.
[25] Jill Krebs M., “Contemporary Marian Apparitions and Devotional Cultures,” Religion Compass 11, no. 3–4 (April 2017): 2.
[26] Sandra Zimdars-Swartz L., Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991), 27.
[27] Ibid, 27; The origin of this record is J. Stern, La Salette, Documents authentiques: dossier chronologique intégral, vol 2, Le procés de l’apparition fin mars 1847-avril 1849 (Paris, 1919), Doc. 340, p. 202.
[28] Ibid, 28.
[29] Ibid, 47.
[30] Ibid, 44-45.
[31] Ibid, 69.
[32] Ibid.; A. M. Martins, ed., Novos Documentos (Sao Paulo, Brazil: Edicoes Loyola, 1984), 180-182, 229; Louis Kondor, Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words (Stillriver, MA: Ravengate Press, 1976), 52-54, 99.
[33] Tiago Pires Marques, “Extraordinary Order: Fatima, Religious Affects and the Catholic Political Imagination in Portugual, c.1910-1950,” Portuguese Journal of Social Science 13, no. 3 (2014): 257.
[34] Zimdars-Swartz, Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje, 29.
[35] Ibid, 28.
[36] Ibid.; M. Clavat, Vie de Melanie, Bergere de La Salette (Paris, 1919), 3-50.
[37] Zimdars-Swartz, Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje, 28.
[38] Ibid, 44.
[39] Ibid, 46.; R. Laurentin, Bernadette of Lourdes (Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press, 1979), 14.
[40] R. Laurentin, Lourdes, Histoire Authentique, vol. 2, L’enfance de Bernadette et les trois premieres apparitions, 7 janvier 1844-18 fevrier 1858 (Paris: Lethielleux, 1962), 51-68.
[41] Zimdars-Swartz, Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje, 49.
[42] Ibid, 70.
[43] Ibid, 71.
[44] Ibid, 28.
[45] Ibid, 29; J. Stern, La Salette: Documents Authentiques: Dossier Chronologique Integral Vol. 2, Le Proces de l’Apprition Fin Mars 1847-Avril 1849 (Paris: Cerf, 1984), 284-294.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Zimdars-Swartz, Encountering Mary, 30: From La Salette to Medjugorje; J. Stern, La Salette: Documents Authentiques: Dossier Chronologique Integral Vol. 1, Septembre 1846-Debut Mars 1847 (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1980), 47-48.
[48] Zimdars-Swartz, Encountering Mary, 32: From La Salette to Medjugorje; Stern, La Salette: Documents Authentiques: Dossier Chronologique Integral Vol. 1, Septembre 1846-Debut Mars 1847, 294.
[49] Zimdars-Swartz, Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje, 43.
[50] Ibid, 47; R. Laurentin, Lourdes, Dossier Des Documents Authentiques, Vol. 1, Au Temps Des Seize Premieres Apparitions, 11 Fevrier-3 Avril 1858, 2nd Ed. (Paris: Lethielleux, 1962), Doc 3, 161-163.
[51] Zimdars-Swartz, Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje, 48-49.
[52] Ibid, 50; Laurentin, Lourdes, Dossier Des Documents Authentiques, Vol. 1, Au Temps Des Seize Premieres Apparitions, 11 Fevrier-3 Avril 1858, 2nd Ed, Doc 12, 179.
[53] Zimdars-Swartz, Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje, 73; Martins, Novos Documentos, 187-190; Kondor, Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words, 60-61.
[54] Zimdars-Swartz, Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje, 78; J. de Marchi, Fatima: The Facts, trans. I. M. Kingsbury (Cork, Ireland: Mercier Press, 1950), 45-46; J. de Marchi, The Immaculate Heart, ed. W. Ray (New York City, NY: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1852), 52-53.
[55] Zimdars-Swartz, Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje, 78-79; de Marchi, Fatima: The Facts, 53-54; de Marchi, The Immaculate Heart, 60.
[56] Zimdars-Swartz, Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje, 79.
[57] Ibid, 29.
[58] Ibid, 47.
[59] Ibid, 48.
[60] Zimdars-Swartz, Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje, 73; Martins, Novos Documentos, 187-190; Kondor, Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words, 60-61.
[61] Zimdars-Swartz, Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje, 63-64, 79.
[62] Pohl, Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing Phenomena in Judgment, Thinking and Memory, 4.
[63] John MacArthur, Twelve Ordinary Men: How the Master Shaped His Disciples for Greatness and What He Wants To Do with You (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 1.
[64] Ibid, 3.
[65] Matthew 4:18-22.
[66] MacArthur, Twelve Ordinary Men: How the Master Shaped His Disciples for Greatness and What He Wants To Do with You, 120.
[67] Luke 5:27-32.
[68] Luke 18:28.
[69] William Anderson H. U., “Jewish Education Around the Time of the New Testament (100 Bce-100 Ce),” Journal of Beliefs and Values 18, no. 2 (1997): 224.
[70] S. Ross Hickling, An Evidentiary Analysis of Doctor Richard Carrier’s Objections to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christian Philosophy Today 20 (Bonn, Germany: Verlag fur Kultur und Wissenschaft, 2018), 223.
[71] John 20:14-15.
[72] Edward W. Klink, John, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 23236, Kindle.
[73] John 20:25.
[74] Klink, John, 24136, Kindle.
[75] John 20:28.
[76] Klink, John, 24136, Kindle.
[77] 1 Corinthians 15:3-5.
Comments