Would C.S. Lewis Approve of “Atheist TV”?
Ken Ham is up in arms about the world’s first atheistic-dedicated TV channel, but there is a better path for disagreement.
The world has entered a new era in TV entertainment and programming as of 2014. American Atheists—a non-profit defending, among other things, the civil rights of “atheists, freethinkers, and other nonbelievers”—launched Atheist TV, which will offer “exclusively atheist, humanist, and freethought programming.”
David Silverman, president of American Atheists, told a Stanford University audience why the organization is trying its hands at TV:
“We’re going to TV because it’s part of our strategy of going to where we are not… There is a lot of potential here. From televangelists to Christmas specials, there is a plethora of religious TV programming to choose from. With Atheist TV, we’re filling a void: There are a lot of atheists and closeted atheists who are curious and want more. We have it, and the next step is bringing it to them.”
Seems reasonable enough to me, but Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis—a non-profit Christian organization—would strongly disagree with my assessment.
In response to the network’s launch, Ham wrote a blog that was anything but generous. It was actually full of misunderstandings and misrepresentations about atheism, which encourages a continuation of derisive, childish rhetoric.
Here are a couple of prime examples, and as you will see, I could not help but address his misrepresentations a bit:
- “I’ve always found it fascinating how they [Atheists] think their purpose is to impose their message that there is no purpose onto people!” — To say that all who fall into the category of non-belief do not think there is a purpose to life is without nuance and uncharitable. They would likely not think there is any transcendent, objective purpose, but most are not nihilistic towards the concept of purpose and choose to create a relative purpose as individuals or groups.
- “It is incredible that atheists spend so much time, effort, and money arguing against Someone that they don’t even believe exists! Where are all their books, websites, and magazines that argue against the mythical Easter Bunny?” — Atheists have NO reason to waste valuable time fighting “Easter Bunnyism” (If I were an Atheist, I would laugh that his concept of God is even worth being compared to the Easter Bunny.). Last I checked, the belief in a real Easter Bunny is not shared by over 84% of the American population like belief in God is. If that same percentage of folks did believe in a real bunny-like moral arbiter, that gave children eggs for being good which were filled with delicious candy and spiritual truisms that galvanized zealous loyalty, worship and affected public policy decisions like theistic belief does, then I am quite sure there would be time, effort and money devoted to exposing this supposed delusion.
- “Sadly, this new TV channel is not just targeting adults with a hopeless message of godlessness, but they are also trying to indoctrinate children into an atheistic worldview.” — Indoctrination is typically distinguished from education when one is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. If Ham wants to consider Atheist TV indoctrination of children, which it would be if it totes the likes of a Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, or any other “talking head” atheist that unfairly caricatures the theistic perspective (admittedly due to people like Ham and others) and pushes them to not seek out sophisticated theists for theistic answers, he should take a hard look at his own educational “methods”.
I appreciate the lifetime’s worth of effort Ham has passionately put into fighting for what he believes. And on some core concepts I agree with him. Unfortunately, he continues to prove himself hypocritical and not credible to comment on these issues. So let’s not waste anymore time navigating the rhetorical mine field he espouses and move on to another Christian perspective—one I believe to be much more helpful and credible.
Humbugs Beware
C.S. Lewis’s essay, “Man or Rabbit”, makes the point that apathy towards the deepest questions of life is a much bigger problem than Atheist TV. “One of the things that distinguishes man from the other animals,” Lewis says, “is that he wants to know things, wants to find out what reality is like, simply for the sake of knowing.” Humble curiosity is a virtue of humanity, and the questions that come from it drive our species into greater understanding—or arguably greater understanding of our confusion—in this predicament called life. According to Lewis, to act truly human is to not shy away from life-defining questions like a cowardice rabbit who is incapable of wielding such a virtue.
My view about Atheist TV is best summarized in a key passage from this important essay and would be the same if the topic was Christian TV, Buddhist TV, Islamic TV or any other “TV” that makes assertions about the most fundamental elements of reality. Speaking about Christianity, Lewis writes:
“Here is a door, behind which, according to some people, the secret of the universe is waiting for you. Either that’s true, or it isn’t. And if it isn’t, then what the door really conceals is simply the greatest fraud, the most colossal ‘sell’ on record. Isn’t it obviously the job of every man (that is a man and not a rabbit) to try to find out which, and then to devote his full energies either to serving this tremendous secret or to exposing and destroying this gigantic humbug?”
As long as Atheist TV is generous to its dissenting audience’s arguments and does not promote intellectual misrepresentations and misunderstandings, I believe Lewis would be perfectly fine with this new era of TV. He would respect his opponents, while also likely telling Christians to not live in fear and agree with all honest inquisitors, including our atheist friends, to continue arguing in a fair manner about truth.
In the end, Ken Ham fears the Christian message will be harmed by Atheist TV. But what is more harm to the Christian message: the era of Atheist TV, or Christians having an unsophisticated understanding of those who disagree, misrepresent them repeatedly, and cry foul when the same is done in return?
For the record, I am betting C.S. Lewis would say the latter. Whether he would be correct or not is the question you have to answer.
