exclude the ability tofly. After all, the everyday interactions of our pre-
historical ancestors would have been radically different if they had had to
consider the possibility that a person they were chasing couldfly away. Across
cultures, the ability offlight or levitation is associated with extraordinary
people or extraordinary religious achievement (Mahony, 2005). Flying is the
ultimate miracle that Simon Magus performs in theActs of Peter(chs 4 and
32). In Apuleius’sMetamorphoses, Lucius’landlady uses witchcraft to turn
herself into an owl andfly at night. In the post-war period, adherents of cargo
cults in the Southern Pacific built replica aircrafts and airports, awaiting the
return of the ancestors who would bring about material abundance (Kaplan,
2005; Lawrence, 2005). Has exposure to aircrafts, helicopters, space travel, and
commercialflights changed this fascination? One can argue that for modern
Westerners the concept of individual and reasonably freeflying with the help
of some innovative tool (think about hang-gliders today) is just a matter of
incremental technological development, rather than a paradoxical idea.
A contemporary version of this tradition is thefictional sport called“quid-
ditch”practiced by Harry Potter and his schoolmates—which includesflying
on a broomstick, a detail inspired by the popular image of the witch’s
broomstick (Murray, 1962, pp. 104–6). Perhaps only some versions offlight
are counterintuitive: it can be argued that a humanflying with the help of a
tool involves extraordinary difficulty (comparable to the difficulties in some
biblical miracles), but no counterintuitiveness, technically speaking. A controlled
experiment could answer the question of whether cultural exposure has changed
the effect offlight as a counterintuitive concept.
Culture influences not only the transmission of counterintuitive ideas but
also their reception. Counterintuitive ideas and miracle stories that include
such ideas (possibly adding emotional and other details to them) will be
contextualized and interpreted in some culturally available framework. In a
religious tradition, a miracle story can come with an interpretation that
already integrates counterintuitiveness into an elaborated theological system.
For example, in the Gospel of John, Jesus’miracles are seen as“signs”of his
being the incarnate divine logos. Yet the very polyvalence and rich history of
reception of New Testament miracles shows that counterintuitive ideas can be
difficult to bind to one specific cognitive framework. Being both memorable
and paradoxical, counterintuitive motifs can generate ongoing reflection and
interpretation. Harry Potter’s riding a broomstick and his other counterintui-
tive dealings have nofixed frame of interpretation (other than that of“fantasy
literature”) and as free-floating memes they can be contextualized in many
different ways. In a dualistic world-view, characteristic of many conservative
Christian groups, understanding them as manifestations of Satanic powers or
as“occult teachings”is a possibility at hand.
Above I have argued that counterintuitive traits have a fairly similar effect on
ancient and modern minds. There are, in turn, obvious differences in the
Magic and Miracle 137