Can something as serious as a debate over the existence of God and its consequences for humanity be turned into superficial pap? That may be the case with the new PBS show "The Question of God" which presents the debate with two of the worst representatives of their respective positions: Freud for atheism and C.S. Lewis for theism.

There are so many problems with these choices that it's difficult to know exactly where to begin, but let's begin with Freud. Why Freud? According to PBS:

Freud's philosophical writings, more widely read than his expository or scientific works, have played a significant role in the secularization of our culture. In the 17th century people turned to the discoveries of astronomy to demonstrate what they considered the irreconcilable conflict between science and faith; in the 18th century, to Newtonian physics; in the 19th century, to Darwin; in the 20th century and still today, Freud is the atheist's touchstone.

Yes, it's true that Freud has been very important in modern culture — and for that reason a well-educated person is at least familiar with his ideas. The one thing that Freud offers atheists is the one thing that he offers the philosophy of religion generally: he was an important force behind the research into the psychology of religion. This field has moved well beyond Freud by now, but anyone researching it will touch upon his arguments at some point.

It is absolutely false, however, that he is the "atheist's touchstone" in the 20th and 21st centuries. Few atheists reference him and even fewer rely upon him. Why? Atheists tend to be educated in scientific matters and, because of that, they tend to be aware of something too few others are: much of what Freud proposed has been disproven. Freud wasn't much of a scientist, and that's being generous. The person who wrote the above simply isn't familiar with atheism today — a pretty serious problem, given the context.

Then there is C.S. Lewis:

A celebrated Oxford don, literary critic, and perhaps the 20th century's most popular proponent of faith based on reason, Lewis won international recognition long before his death in 1963. During World War II, his broadcast talks made his voice second only to Churchill's as the most recognized on the BBC. His books continue to sell prodigiously and his influence continues to grow.

Unfortunately, "popular" is not the same as "good" or "successful" or even "reasonable." Lewis' apologetics are, not to put too fine a point on it, laughably awful. There are apologists out there who are good, intelligent, and who make arguments that require serious thought to even begin to address. C.S. Lewis most definitely does not fall in this category. He makes so many atrocious errors of reason and logic that even someone with just a passing familiarity with logical fallacies is able to pick things apart.

Ultimately, C.S. Lewis falls into that most unenviable and pathetic category of apologist: those who have nothing to say except to believers and who are able to convince no one except those who already believe or are merely looking for excuses to believe. To use Lewis as the representative of theism while so many far superior theistic thinkers are ignored is a grievous insult modern apologetics.

What, exactly, is the purpose of this show?

The purpose of The Question of God — the book, television series, and Web site — is to look at human life from two diametrically opposed points of view: those of the believer and the unbeliever.

For some strange reason, the assumption is being made that Freud and Lewis are the best examples of these points of view — but they don't even exhaust the full ranges of possible points of view. It's a conceit of religious believers in the West that the choice is basically between atheism and Christianity (or, if they are feeling ecumenical, some form of monotheism that includes Judaism and/or Islam). This, however, is simply false.

Where, for example, is the Buddhist perspective? How about a Hindu? Where is the Taoist explaining the importance of the Tao? They could provide a radically different view from either Freud or Lewis, so why are these two given the spotlight?

The actual purpose of this show, I think, is to capitalize on a popular book that came out of a popular college course taught by Dr. Armand Nicholi at Harvard. A course on this might not be so bad because it provides a setting where one can interact with others and challenge the texts. What we are actually getting here, though, is just an attempt to capture ratings.

Frankly, I wouldn't waste my time with this show. A much better use of time would be to read up on what is so wrong with Freud, read up on what is wrong with Lewis, or read a much more serious and productive debate between an atheist and a theist.

Read More:

• Atheism 101
• Philosophy 101
• Critical Thinking
• Religion 101
• Theism 101
• Does God Exist?