DOES GOD EXIST? THE SERIES

May 15, 2007  

On Monday, May 7, professed atheist and commentator Christopher Hitchens and the ever-Reverend Al Sharpton engaged in a sold-out debate over “Is God great?” before a crowd at the Celeste Bartos Forum at the New York Public Library’s Beaux-Arts headquarters on Fifth Avenue. On Wednesday and Thursday, May 9 and 10, ABC’s Nightline aired a debate on the question, “Does God exist?” between “Rational Response Squad” leader and atheist Brian “Sapient” with his girlfriend Kelly and former Growing Pains star turned evangelist Kirk Cameron with itinerant preacher Ray Comfort. Is this the beginning of a new fad?

A Jesuit and Franciscan educated Catholic (in the interest of full disclosure), I’ve always been simultaneously amused and bemused by the tradi

ional “does-God-exist” and “creationism versus evolution” debates. They tend to recycle the same old talking points.

Too frequently, they come off as replays of the 1925 “Scopes Monkey Trial”, where Clarence Darrow defended Tennessee schoolteacher John Scopes, accused of teaching evolution, against William Jennings Bryan for the State of Tennessee. Essentially, it’s God created the world in seven days versus a few hundred million years of natural evolution—the classic conflict of science and religion.

Evolution has mountains of scientific evidence to support it. Those who believe the Bible is the literal word of God have the Bible. I don’t care how many science degrees you have or how many dinosaurs you’ve dug up, you’re never going to convince someone who interprets the Bible literally that what he believes it says is wrong. And I don’t care if the angel Gabriel appeared to you last night, you are never going to convince someone who’s into carbon dating that the world is only a few thousand years old.

Debating the existence of God or the historic truth of the Old Testament hasn’t been a staple for the mainstream news and entertainment media or a sellout event for New Yorkers. Religious belief, or lack of it, is a personal thing. But now the Hitchens-Sharpton and Sapient-Cameron debates open the door for a fresh, more entertaining approach. Could a weekly TV series be far behind? 

According to Sewell Chan, who witnessed the Hutchens-Sharpton debate, you could tell from the background music played beforehand—James Brown and Gregorian chant—that it was going to be unusual. Hitchens, who argued that belief in God is irrational, also asserted that religion poisons everything. “He cited two arguments against faith. First that religion is simply untrue, religions having risen to explain phenomena that could not be accounted for—like diseases and natural disasters—for which there are now scientific explanations.”

Sharpton, on sabbatical from attacking Don Imus, and always colorful, rebutted Hutchens’ assertions with traditional arguments but without referring to the Bible. He argued that, “without God, all is morally relative,” and suggested, “the marvel of human creation—including evolution—implies the existence of a divine creator.” As you might expect, Sharpton also drew on the civil rights movement. “It was absolutely fueled by a belief in God and a belief in right and wrong”

The Sapient-Cameron debate resulted from an earlier Nightline segment that featured the Rational Response Squad and their “blasphemy challenge.” They encourage people to make videos of themselves denying the existence of the Holy Spirit and posting them on sites like YouTube. At the end of the segment, Sapient challenged Christians, “to come to the table and present their evidence. And we will see how much of their evidence is based on faith and how much of mine is based on fact.”

The substance of the debate itself was not particularly new. As entertainment, it was great! How many people, one wonders, tuned it see if Sapient and Kelly might be struck by lightning or turned into pillars of salt or if any of those who previously had taken up the blasphemy challenge had suffered a similar fate. Cameron and Comfort, who fit the mold of modern day fire and brimstone evangelists, made the traditional arguments, but Cameron was a former television star. Watching him debate the existence of God was like watching “Debating With The Stars”.

Not since Inherit the Wind, the play and movie about the Scopes trial, has there been an audience as much interested in being entertained by such debates as they are in the substance. With this new audience, just think of all the interesting people producers of a weekly television debate about the existence of God could pair off against each other. Jesse Jackson could debate Britany Spears. Franklin Graham could debate Paris Hilton—as soon as she completes her stint in prison. Imagine the ratings these programs would have! Advertisers would flock to them!

The effect of such a series could be profound. Instead of debating who should be kicked off American Idol each week, people who might not otherwise take an interest in the weighty questions of God and religion may actually begin debating these issues with family, friends, and coworkers.

Arguing for or against the existence of God and debates over creation versus evolution have always been people talking apples and oranges. Science tells us how. Religion—at its core—tells us why. The realms of science and religion likely will never be reconciled. But that doesn’t mean debating these issues is pointless.

In today’s world we are exposed to an ever-increasing body of scientific information about the origins of the Universe and the history of our planet. Atheist or believer, any person who dwells on these issues can’t help but ask himself questions he can’t answer. Debating them certainly won’t answer all these questions, but it may answer some of them.

The world’s three great religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were all founded at a time when mankind knew comparatively little about the universe. Their great books, the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran, divine revelation or not, were written using the concepts and images of their times. Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed all talked to the people in the terms of reference they understood. The fundamental concepts of good and evil and the teachings on how people should live their lives, however, have stood the test of time. They are as relevant today and will be tomorrow as they were when they were written.

Religious leaders have been guilty of corruption, hypocrisy, sexual abuse, and worse. As it has for thousands of years, religion remains at the heart of conflicts around the world. None of this, however, proves that God does not exist, just that free will does.

Mainstream media, mostly the news departments, have focused much on the negative side of religion. Entertainment programs with religious themes generally avoid the hard questions. There are plenty of religious cable television channels and programs, but their audiences are the faithful. If a more entertaining approach to debating God and religion and the need to reverse their declining audiences will entice the main stream media to produce programs general audiences will watch, I’m all for it. We may all be enlightened.