In the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, many of his supporters have interpreted the events from a religious perspective. Marjorie Taylor Greene claims that “before [the shooting] happened, the flag above got blown in the wind and got tied into literally what looked like an angel. Did you see that video?”
If you watch the video, you will notice that, yes, with a bit of imagination, the image might vaguely resemble some aerial being with wings. It could also resemble the Mercedes Benz logo. Your perception will ultimately depend on your previous state of mind.
Skeptics have long been aware of pareidolia, a psychological phenomenon where people perceive recognisable patterns, such as faces, shapes, or objects, in random, unrelated stimuli. These stimuli can include things like clouds, rock formations, or even inanimate objects like a toaster or a piece of toast. Essentially, pareidolia involves the brain’s tendency to make sense of ambiguous or random visual information by attributing familiar patterns to it, often leading to seeing things that are not actually there. This phenomenon is a result of the human brain’s natural inclination to seek and identify meaningful patterns in the environment.
But absent angels, many other of Trump’s supporters still insist that a miracle took place, and that he was saved by “God’s hand.” Senator Tim Scott said: “If you didn’t believe in miracles before Saturday [the day of the assassination attempt], you better be believing right now!”
This is very disingenuous talk. There was nothing physically impossible in the course of events. The bullet followed the expected trajectory it would if fired in those very same circumstances. Yes, the bullet missed Trump’s body narrowly, but failed assassination attempts of high-profile politicians do take place on occasion. Furthermore, even if Trump’s survival can be considered highly unlikely, it is still not a miracle. A miracle is not merely an improbable event, but rather one that defies the known laws of nature. Nothing of the sort happened that day.
Suppose there is a lottery in which the entire world population (ie, roughly 6 billion) participates, and you win the ticket. Before knowing the result, how probable would you consider winning it? Extremely unlikely. And yet, you won. Is that a miracle? No, after all, one person on the planet did have to win the lottery, and you just happened to be that one person. Those who deem this event a miracle are falling into what skeptics call the “sharpshooter fallacy.” Imagine a shooter fires shots, and afterwards, paints a shooting target centred on some of the clusters of shots, claiming to be a sharpshooter. Likewise, those who interpret Trump’s survival as some sort of miracle do something to similar effect: after an unlikely event occurs, they attribute it to God’s direct intervention, providing a retrospective explanation that fits their belief system.
The theological interpretation of Trump’s assassination attempt stems from a deficiency in critical thinking. But I am afraid that there are darker forces at play. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tim Scott may or may not sincerely believe what they claim, but it is quite obvious that the theological interpretation of these events is very convenient to Trump’s political comeback.
Many of Trump’s supporters have long framed his political activities in religious terms. He has been called a “modern-day Cyrus.” As per this narrative, very much as the Persian king of Biblical times, Trump has been divinely chosen to carry out a mission, even if he himself is an unlikely vessel for God’s plans. Cyrus allowed Jews to return to Jerusalem from exile in Babylon— and for that, the book of Isaiah styles him as God’s shepherd. Trump’s decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem has been religiously interpreted as a modern-day version of allowing Jews to return to their homeland, and by extension, he too is God’s shepherd. Narrowly surviving an assassination attempt inevitably adds to this mysticism in many people’s minds.
This is an old trick in politics. On May 13th, 1981, Pope John Paul II survived an assassination attempt. That day commemorates the feast of Our Lady of Fatima, and John Paul II came to believe that Virgin of Fatima intervened to save him. Regardless of whether the Pope really believed such a claim, the event suited very well the political dimension of the Fatima cult within Catholic ranks, as ultimately, devotion for the Fatima apparition played an important role in the ideological stance against Communism, of which John Paul II was a staunch exponent.
John Paul II claimed that “a maternal hand guided the bullet.” In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins sarcastically – but very effectively – quips: “One cannot help wondering why she didn’t guide it to miss him altogether. Others might think the team of surgeons who operated on him for six hours deserved at least a share of the credit; but perhaps their hands, too, were maternally guided. The relevant point is that it wasn’t just Our Lady who, in the Pope’s opinion, guided the bullet, but specifically Our Lady of Fatima. Presumably Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Medjugorje, Our Lady of Akita, Our Lady of Zeitoun, Our Lady of Garabandal and Our Lady of Knock were busy on other errands at the time.”
Dawkins’ point is not to gratuitously hurt religious sensitivities, but rather, to encourage critical thinking about unlikely events. Trump’s supporters need to do the same. Some questions ought to be asked: why did God wait until the last minute to intervene? Wouldn’t it have been better a divine intervention to make the rifle malfunction from the onset, and thus save the one person who did die in the shooting (or even spare Trump the inconvenience of having an injured ear)? Where was God when John Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated? Did God also intervene to save Hitler in the assassination attempt of 1944 in the Wolf’s Lair?
To be fair, perhaps something good can come out of this. I would like to think that people who come close to dying come out with a deeper valuing and understanding of life. Samuel Jackson’s character in Pulp Fiction uses religious themes cynically when he kills people – even citing a spurious passage of the biblical book of Ezekiel prior to pulling the trigger. But upon coming off intact after a round of bullets is shot at him, he comes to believe a miracle has happened (his sidekick, John Travolta’s character, tries to persuade him otherwise), and a transformation ensues: after that experience, he is no longer interested in pursuing criminal activities. The belief in miracles brought about his redemption.
However, in politics, things can easily go in the inverse direction. The temptation to misuse power is ever-present, and politicians might be eager to discover self-righteous excuses to evade accountability. In their mind, they may become convinced that, to the extent that God has intervened in their favour by saving them from an assassination, they are indeed the chosen ones, and that suffices to carry out their designs as they see best fit, regardless of what their constituents might think.
Only time will tell how Donald Trump interprets the events. Not being a particularly religious man – yet at the same time aware of the immense influence of religion in American politics – he is likely to play along with the theological interpretations laid out by his followers, but not to promote them himself. In the meantime, we skeptics have the duty to remind the public of a simple truth: improbable events are not necessarily miracles.
