Review of "Faith Under Fire" on PAX TV

by Gregory S. Paul

Pax cable network is now broadcasting at 10:00-11:00 Saturday night's "Faith Under Fire," the first program that takes a no-holds-barred look at religion and nonbelief from all sides. On the down side the program's host, journalist Lee Strobel, is a former atheist turned anti-evolution, pro "intelligent design" Christian Minister, and the program appears to be an organ of that religious wing. On occasion Strobel's bias comes through. On the positive side the program in its first airing seemed to allow both sides to have their say without blatent bias from the host, or from the general tone of the program. A number of segments each addressed a specific topic, from the existence of God, to what party would the creator belong to, did Christ really rise from the dead, to the ethics of assisted suicide. In each segment there were two debators from each side. Usually Strobel pitched hard ball questions to theists and nontheists alike, and did a good job of letting the guests go at it without trying to control the discussion (a common error of talk show hosts), or take sides (I do not know whether the entire discussions were aired or edited in a potentially biased manner). Indeed Strobel often seemed reasonably respectful of nontheistic viewpoints and appreciative when they stuck to their guns - as per the intent of the program he appears to enjoy guests saying what they think rather than toeing the politically correct line. A refreshing break from the nervous fear of many theists and especially nontheists to upset those who disagree with them, so it's kinda fun.

The Christian guests ranged from fundamentalists to liberals, they did fairly well representing their views. So did the atheists and other secularists. The show's presentation is bare-bolts and no-nonsense, in particular there is none of the pious musical background that often afflicts religious topic programs. Even the title allows that faith might, after all, be open to challange. It would improve the show if there were two or more hosts representing varying viewpoints. Also, each segment was too short to really address the issue at hand, to the point that a sometimes amused Strobel usually had to cut off the heated debators with the plea that they were out of time. Despite is flaws and origin (when will there be an avowedly secular advocacy program on the air?), FUF is unprecedented in that it finally gives nonbelievers the opportunity to air their views, and directly challange those who believe in the supernatural. Hopefully it will set a precedent for other programs that take on faith with even more directness. If a theist can get away with providing a forum that includes direct attacks on belief, why can't the nonbelievers?

In disappointing contrast to FUF is NPR's "Speaking of Faith," which a few months ago began to air at 7:00-8:00 Sunday mornings on WETA in DC and WYPR in Baltimore, and an hour earlier in Harrisonburg. Funded by the pro-Christian Templeton and PEW foundations, it scandelously recieves support from National Public Radio. Hosted by blatently biased Christian Krista Tibbett, SOF is a propoganda platform for moderate religious views. Lacking any debate forum, almost all speakers are moderate theists of one sort of another, most often Christian. As far as I can tell potential trouble makers like fundamentalists and atheists who might dare challange the show's premise need not apply (perhaps I've missed them, if so they are as rare as whooping cranes). Tibbett cannot help herself from chronically vocally supporting statements she agrees with and taking a skeptical tone with what those she opposes, the classic signs of bad hosting. The obvious aim of the program is to give the impression that mainstream, rational thinking, intellectual folk have good reason to believe in God. That's indocrination, not information. It is no accident that the title is "Speaking of Faith," rather than, say, Speaking of Faith and Skepticism. The program is correspondingly suffused with the sort of theistic mood music and occassional pious poetry that many middle-of-the-road theists adore while making agnostics gag.

Being so passively one-view oriented SOF can be repetitive to the point of blandness in the worse public broadcasting tradition. Even so I regularly listen because the guests often rise above the format and say interesting things about theism - albeit only moderate theism. The program could be so much better from an educational standpoint if it were funded by neutral organizations, had multiple hosts of varying viewpoints, greatly diversified its guests to actually cover the spectrum of belief and nonbelief, and throws in some debates. And please drop the pabulum music, and change the title. But then Templeton and PEW would not be able to get across their particular brand of faith-based message.

It is an outrage that such a pro-religious venue in both terms of content and its two other funders is being monetarily supported by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, who should cease their funding unless the program is radically reformatted into the unbiased informational program on religion that is so badly needed. Nor should NPR stations air the show unless either it is so revised, or is one part of a set of programs that present diverse views on the subject - something along the lines of The Rational Worldview. On the national scene secular and separationist groups should confront the CPB and SOF on this issue and demand changes in the name of fairness. At the local level this is an issue suitable for WASH to address with WETA and WYPR in terms of other dropping SOF, or supplementing it with broadcasts that provide alternative opinions.