ATHEIST NEED TO BE MORE CRITICAL

What should an atheist apologist do when facing not one, but two specialists in historical Jesus studies, and the topic is the resurrection of Jesus? Should he confront the evidence head-on, knowing perfectly well that the arguments he uses among his hyperskeptical friends are practically useless against people who’ve done the research? Or should he avoid the evidence by diverting the discussion to secondary issues, knowing that if he can’t refute the data, he can at least keep people sidetracked for a while? 

Many atheists would reject the idea that their arguments are useless against scholars; however, I don’t mean this as an insult. It’s a simple fact that there is often a tremendous gulf between popular arguments and scholarly critiques, and this goes for Christians as well as atheists. For instance, a pastor might give members of his congregation a basic Design Argument to use when discussing God’s existence with their skeptical friends. This may help them defend their beliefs, but it would be unwise to use the same argument in a debate with, say, Richard Dawkins. To debate Dawkins, better evidence and a far more sophisticated approach are needed. 

Similarly, an atheist apologist may give his readers a collection of arguments they can use when discussing the resurrection. But it would be quite presumptuous to think that such arguments would be effective against. While I grant that certain important objections may be raised against the resurrection, it’s no secret that practically all atheistic responses are utterly at odds with the facts we know about Jesus and his followers. (Note: If you just thought to yourself, “But we don’t really know anything about Jesus and his followers,” you now have a perfect example of a claim that is thoroughly rejected by scholars, despite what atheists get away with saying). Thus, if an atheist is going to offer a convincing response to the resurrection, he needs something more plausible than “Maybe Jesus passed out on the cross and woke up later,” or “Perhaps the disciples just hallucinated.”

The problem for atheists is that criticisms of the resurrection don’t get much better at the scholarly level. The arguments may become more sophisticated, but this doesn’t mean that they become more plausible. Nor does it mean that they account for the evidence any better. We may contrast this with, for instance, Design Arguments, which can be developed as rigorously as a scientist’s mind will allow. To put it differently, certain Design Arguments seem superficial, but on closer examination they turn out to be thoroughly grounded in science and reason. Criticisms of the resurrection, on the other hand, also seem superficial, but closer inspection only shows that they are superficial.

What, then, should an atheist do when discussing the resurrection with Christian scholars? I’m not sure what the best approach would be, but if I were still an atheist, I would probably go ahead and use the standard atheist responses, even though they don’t fare well under scrutiny. 

Dialogue between Mary and John

Narrator: It was the year 70 A.D. Mary was sitting on a rock at the shore of Patmos Island. The Mediterranean ocean was continually caressing her feet with its waves, as if to pay homage to the Mother of God. She was deep in contemplation with eyes fixed at the horizon. The sun was just setting in the western sky throwing up a riot of colours on the sea and on the sky. The breeze was gentle and cool. A flock of sea gulls made a circle above her before continuing their flight home. May be they wanted to have a glimpse of their queen!

John: “Mamma, what are you thinking about?” called John as he approached and sat by her side.

Mary: “Well son, you know that the object of my contemplation is only one!”

Narrator: John knew it, of course. Jesus was the single object of her meditation. She had been like that all her life. Jesus had gone up to heaven already about 40 years ago.

John: “Luke has written your story beautifully it seems, Mother. Did your hear about it?”

Mary: “No, I did not.”

John: “You yourself told him the story of how you became the mother of the Lord and the events of the infancy of Jesus. How else could anyone know about it? He did also some research about Elizabeth, Zachariah and the circumstances in which those events took place.”

Mary: “I did not want to narrate those events to anyone. But at his insistence I did. After all, the world has to know that Jesus was of God, and not born like ordinary humans.”

John: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us!”

Mary: “What did you say?”

John: “I like to call him the Word. Is he not the Word of Yahweh, the very substance of the Almighty?”

Mary: “John, I don’t understand your theological concepts. But I knew right from that marvellous day in Nazareth and he was God’s Son.”

John: “Yes Mother, he came to give all of us the right to become children of God, children not born of the flesh, nor of the desire of man, but by God.”

Narrator: Mary went into reverie again. Mary: “John, you are so poetic about your Master.”

Narrator: John went into a thoughtful mood and said: “The Word became flesh and pitched his tent among us. He came as the light that enlightens all.  But the world did not recognize him. He came among his own and his own received him not.”

Mary: “Don’t mention that John. I have forgiven our people who rejected and killed him. It is a thing of the past. They are all my children now.”

John: “Sorry mother. I know that it hurts you. If you will excuse me, I am a bit curious to know how you managed to stand under the cross those three hours. Somehow my contemplation is always on Calvary.”

Narrator: “Hummm,” sighed the Mother. Mary: “You were there. I knew that Jesus and you were close friends and it must have been a torture for you too.”

Narrator: John was silent and let the mother speak.

Mary: “Well son, I will share with you a sort of crisis of faith I went through, standing under that cross.”

Narrator: John widened his eyes in surprise. He moved and sat near her feet looking up eagerly at her face.

John: “It was a moment of crisis for all of us, mother,” he said soothingly.

Mary: “For all of you, yes, to some extent. But it was the worst for me. For you it was just that your Messianic hope had ended. For me it was different. At that time only I knew something that none of you knew.”

John: “What was that mamma?”

Mary: “That Jesus was truly God’s Son!”

John: “Oh yes, now that you say it. We all thought he was the Messiah and a man sent by God. Jesus was constantly calling God his ‘Abba’. But we never truly understood that. How could it ever occur to us that the one and only God might have a Son. It was beyond our wildest imagination. Our Scriptures have called several people sons of God, but it was a figurative speech.”

John: “I heard that Peter once confessed that Jesus was the Son of the Living God.”

“Yes, I was there, and I heard it. But I am sure that Peter did not understand the nature of Jesus as we know it today after his resurrection. I knew Peter’s mind well. Now we know from your own mouth that he was born of God. Only you knew this at that moment.”

“Yet, standing under the cross, I hear Jesus crying, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabaktani’! And the crowds were shouting, If you are the son of God, come down from the cross”.

This was a sacred moment. Mary was opening her soul to her adopted son! John dared not interrupt.

Mary: “The words of the Angel Gabriel came and hit my heart like hammer blows. He had said that the child would be conceived by the power of the Most High; that he would be called Son of God; he would sit on the throne of his father David; and his kingdom would have no end.”

Narrator: The Mother’s face was aglow with an unusual brightness.

Mary: “And here was my crisis. Could this Son of God die like a common criminal? Could God abandon his child? Was Jesus himself going through a faith crisis on the cross? Was I mistaken in that house of Nazareth when I heard the message of the angel? Or was I having hallucinations under the cross? The whole thing did not fit together. It all looked absurd.”

Narrator: John ventured a word. John: “I was standing there, holding you in my arms. And I did not know what you were going through.”

Mary: “It was as if Satan were haunting me. ‘You were cheated’ he seemed to heckle. I began to pray as I have always done. Then I understood something.”

John: “What is that mother?”

Mary: “That God’s ways are not ours. His plans are not for us to understand, but to believe. If God had told me that Jesus was His Son, so He was! And if God had decided to allow His Son to be killed by hanging him on a tree, He must be having his reasons. It is not for me to question His wisdom.”

John: “Oh dear, Jesus must have also known what you were going through.”

Mary: “I think He did. I saw compassion in his eyes in spite of pain, as he looked at me; but also confidence that I would understand and believe. And I decided to believe, despite all. I decided that if it were true that my Son was dying, it was also true that he was truly God’s Son!”

John: “Now I know the real reason why he entrusted us to you, Mother. You are the only one who could sustain all of us in our crisis.”

John: “I realized that. So I steadied myself and stood firm next to you and to Mary Magdalene. It is faith that made me survive that day. Without it I would have died right there under the cross.”

“We all started believing only after the resurrection. You were the only one who kept the faith alive on that day! Mother, for this we your sons will do whatever you tell us to do!”

Narrator: Mary had a smile on her face. She got up and moved towards the cottage where they were staying as it was becoming chill.

Narrator: John let her go and said to himself: John: “Behold a woman clothed with the sun, standing on the moon, wearing a crown of twelve stars…!”

Narrator: Mary went up till the door, turned back and called John inside. John immediately sprang up to her. John looking at her said, John: “I Love you mamma”

Narrator: Mary in return told him, Mary: “I Love you, too.”