This week, I've been writing a series
looking at some of the objections skeptics raise against the Easter celebration.
Although it may have seemed like my purpose was to answer the objections, my
true goal was something a bit more ambitious. I wanted to make you, dear
Christian, smarter than Google. You may think "Make me smarter than Google?
That's impossible!" Ah, but it is possible and let me show you how.
No one
doubts that we are now a wired culture. Smart phones account for
74% of mobile phone users, according to Frank N. Magid Associates. We have
the Internet at our fingertips no matter where we are, and that isn't always a
good thing. As I heard one commentator explain, there used to be a time when as
you and your friends were waiting in line at the movie theater, you may have an
argument over whether that obscure bomb of a film from twenty years ago had such
and such a scene in it. Such conversations may lead to discussions on the
merits of the scene itself or other issues, but it would always foster
communication and engagement with other people. However, now when a question
like this arises someone will simply pullout their iPhone, search for the film
clip or synopsis, and say "Here's the answer." That's the end of the story and
usually the end of conversation on that point.
Because Google searches are so
effective at slamming down an answer to points of detail, people have begun to
rely on the search engine to answer everything they have a question on. And
that's where the real problem comes in. When a question becomes more complex,
such as "Was Easter influenced by pagan sources," simply taking the first two or
three results of a Google search may not give you the correct answer. It
will simply give you the most popular page. Worse, it limits your ability to
critically think through the claims. By relying solely on Google, you're
unplugging your brain, and that should never be the case.
But it doesn't have
to be that way. You don't need to be an expert in history or on ancient
religions to see why many times the claims made by these skeptics are truly
ridiculous. In fact, I have been intentionally avoiding "scholar mode" to look
at the facts as they are presented. Let's take that article I've been discussing
this week by Heather McDougall that ran in The Guardian and just hit a couple of
glaring problems. It begins:
Easter is a pagan festival. If Easter isn't
really about Jesus, then what is it about? Today, we see a secular culture
celebrating the spring equinox, whilst religious culture celebrates the
resurrection. However, early Christianity made a pragmatic acceptance of ancient
pagan practises, most of which we enjoy today at Easter. The general symbolic
story of the death of the son (sun) on a cross (the constellation of the
Southern Cross) and his rebirth, overcoming the powers of darkness, was a well
worn story in the ancient world. There were plenty of parallel, rival
resurrected saviours too.
We've already looked at the supposed
connection with the spring equinox, the fact that the resurrection accounts
are told in a
Jewish context, and that the history of the resurrection accounts
could not have evolved over the centuries. But look at that second to last
sentence. McDougall writes, "The general symbolic story of the death of the son
(sun) on a cross (the constellation of the Southern Cross) and his rebirth,
overcoming the powers of darkness, was a well worn story in the ancient world."
Uh, yeah. The first piece that McDougall seems to miss is that in the ancient
world, no one spoke modern English. What do I mean? The play on words
between son and sun only works in our language. You may not know the Greek for
son and sun, but if you have taken high school Spanish, you can see that the
word son (hijo) and the word sun (sol) are very different. They are not
homonyms, and they wouldn't be in the ancient languages either. That play on
words only works in English, and I'm pretty sure none of the Sumerians,
Babylonians, or Romans spoke it in their day.
Secondly, McDougall ties the crucifixion to the
constellation of the Southern Cross. Huh? We know that Romans crucified people,
but trying to make such a connection is pretty tough. First of all, it's called
the southern cross because it is only prominent in the night sky when you are
positioned south of the equator. That's why Australia and New Zealand integrate
it into their flags. But, more importantly, the idea of what shapes ANY of the
constellations make are not universal. Different cultures would overlay their
own images on different star clusters, just as you and a friend can look at the
same cloud but see very different animal shapes in it. McDougall is spitting out
a bunch of "just so" stories and there's enough here for you to at least be
doubtful of them without having to do much research at all.
The Skeptic Bears a Burden When he Offers an Objection
It's natural
that when Christians are confronted by a friend who questions them about an
article like McDougall's, they feel a bit scared. I've received many inquiries
by people asking for my help on the charges of the Zeitgeist movie or the
supposedly rejected gospels. I get that it can feel overwhelming. But please
remember, a lot of those objections are based on others doing their own
brain-unplugging. They are uncritically taking any objection to Christianity
that they can Google-search and presenting it before you to justify their
skepticism.
If the skeptics you converse with are going to engage in a "you
must give me reasons" exchange, then they should be prepared to give reasons why
they think their "evidence" should be accepted as a real objection. It isn't
enough for them to throw out the very first "critical response" they can find.
As I've said before, any fool with a login and an opinion can post on the
Internet. That doesn't mean the objections they offer are worthwhile.
As
Christians, let's be more prepared to engage others by exercising our minds with
a bit of practice in thinking through the claims instead of just turning to
Google ourselves. Sure, there are going to be times where you need the
background or the facts. There will be experts who offer thoughts that you may
not have thought about yourself. In fact, part of my ministry is to help
Christians by providing some of that information. However, I don't want
Christians to be lazy. A little bit of thought can answer more than you may
expect, and a quick reply based on your own common sense can help foster more
discussion than copy and paste ever would.