0:00:06 > 0:00:081860.
0:00:09 > 0:00:15Less than a year after Darwin published The Origin Of Species,
0:00:15 > 0:00:20and Victorian society was reeling from the new theory of evolution.
0:00:20 > 0:00:23Is this the language of science?
0:00:23 > 0:00:25MUTTERING
0:00:25 > 0:00:31The Natural History museum in Oxford was packed with nearly a thousand spectators.
0:00:31 > 0:00:34I implore my hearers
0:00:34 > 0:00:37to believe in God,
0:00:37 > 0:00:40rather than man.
0:00:41 > 0:00:46Making the case for evolution was a young biologist
0:00:46 > 0:00:50called Thomas Huxley, known as "Darwin's Bulldog".
0:00:50 > 0:00:54ALL: Huxley! Huxley! Huxley!
0:00:54 > 0:01:00He was one of a new generation who thought religion should play no part
0:01:00 > 0:01:02in the business of science.
0:01:03 > 0:01:08Every step of the argument is securely based on irrefutable fact,
0:01:08 > 0:01:12detailed precisely and unequivocally.
0:01:16 > 0:01:22Standing against the theory of evolution was the Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce.
0:01:22 > 0:01:25And the story goes that his attack turned personal.
0:01:25 > 0:01:27BANGING
0:01:27 > 0:01:30Let me ask him this one question.
0:01:30 > 0:01:36In so proudly claiming his descent from a monkey, ape or baboon,
0:01:36 > 0:01:41does he do so on his grandfather's side or his grandmother's?
0:01:41 > 0:01:42LAUGHTER
0:01:48 > 0:01:55I'm a historian of science and for me, the debate that was held here is fascinating.
0:01:55 > 0:01:57It has become part of a popular idea
0:01:57 > 0:02:01that there's an inevitable clash between science and religion,
0:02:01 > 0:02:05that they're forever locked in a battle for supremacy.
0:02:05 > 0:02:11Today, 150 years on, it would seem that science has won the war.
0:02:13 > 0:02:18For nearly 50 of those years, Horizon and the BBC have witnessed
0:02:18 > 0:02:26scientific advances, and reported on when science has met with religion.
0:02:26 > 0:02:32Looking back over five decades of science programmes, I want to ask if,
0:02:32 > 0:02:38in our modern scientific world, there is any room left for God.
0:02:38 > 0:02:42ALL: Huxley! Huxley! Huxley!
0:02:55 > 0:02:59The story of science and religion isn't just one of conflict.
0:02:59 > 0:03:03It's more varied and interesting than that.
0:03:03 > 0:03:06But signs of trouble date all the way back
0:03:06 > 0:03:10to an Italian mathematician, his telescope and the Bible.
0:03:29 > 0:03:37Anyone using a telescope today is following in the footsteps of a man named Galileo Galilei.
0:03:39 > 0:03:44When he first pointed a telescope at the heavens, he was taking a radical step,
0:03:44 > 0:03:48and what he saw would challenge accepted knowledge.
0:03:54 > 0:04:00In 17th-century Italy, knowledge was tightly controlled by the Catholic Church,
0:04:00 > 0:04:04the most powerful institution in Europe.
0:04:06 > 0:04:11The accepted view was that the Earth was at the centre of the solar system.
0:04:11 > 0:04:17That's what astronomers thought, and the Church also believed they were supported by the Bible.
0:04:19 > 0:04:23But when Galileo started to explore the night sky with a telescope,
0:04:23 > 0:04:27his observations told a different story.
0:04:31 > 0:04:34He saw moons moving round the planet Jupiter...
0:04:37 > 0:04:41..and drew a bold conclusion.
0:04:41 > 0:04:45Not everything in the night sky orbited the Earth.
0:04:45 > 0:04:50So perhaps our planet wasn't the centre of the solar system after all.
0:04:51 > 0:04:56BELL TOLLS
0:04:56 > 0:05:00Galileo's conclusion directly contradicted the Church's.
0:05:02 > 0:05:09When it came to knowledge of the natural world, he thought his telescope was more reliable
0:05:09 > 0:05:12than the Bible.
0:05:15 > 0:05:17The Church was not convinced.
0:05:17 > 0:05:21It found him guilty of heresy.
0:05:22 > 0:05:26Behind Galileo's downfall were two questions that are central
0:05:26 > 0:05:30to the whole story of science and religion - who owns knowledge,
0:05:30 > 0:05:35and what makes one source of knowledge more reliable than another?
0:05:42 > 0:05:50Generations of scientists have thought hard about the best ways to investigate the world.
0:05:52 > 0:05:58And over the last 50 years, many have told Horizon about the methods they use
0:05:58 > 0:06:02to make scientific knowledge as reliable as possible.
0:06:05 > 0:06:10Richard Feynman was a Nobel Prize-winning physicist.
0:06:10 > 0:06:13The way I think of what we're doing is we're exploring,
0:06:13 > 0:06:16we're trying to find out as much as we can about the world.
0:06:16 > 0:06:19But whatever way it comes out, nature is there,
0:06:19 > 0:06:21and she's going to come out the way she is.
0:06:21 > 0:06:25Therefore, when we investigate, we shouldn't pre-decide what it is
0:06:25 > 0:06:28we're trying to do, except to find out more about it.
0:06:30 > 0:06:36At the heart of scientists' knowledge are observation and logic.
0:06:39 > 0:06:44They make hypotheses, and test them time and again against the evidence.
0:06:51 > 0:06:56Cosmologist Carlos Frenk has been taking part in Horizon programmes
0:06:56 > 0:06:59for nearly 20 years.
0:06:59 > 0:07:01We have a set of physical laws that we know,
0:07:01 > 0:07:03from laboratory experiments, work.
0:07:03 > 0:07:05We use these laws to formulate
0:07:05 > 0:07:08a theory. We use that theory to make predictions and then
0:07:08 > 0:07:11we compare these predictions with observations.
0:07:13 > 0:07:17Anything that you come up with has to be corroborated.
0:07:17 > 0:07:20Not just by one experiment, but by many different groups.
0:07:20 > 0:07:23That is the essence of the scientific method.
0:07:23 > 0:07:27Repeatability, rigour, accuracy and relevance.
0:07:32 > 0:07:36This method of discovery isn't foolproof,
0:07:36 > 0:07:42but in the last 400 years, it's uncovered some of the fundamentals of our world.
0:07:56 > 0:08:00It's revealed what makes up the air we breathe.
0:08:00 > 0:08:04How fast light travels.
0:08:05 > 0:08:09Even how new life is made.
0:08:14 > 0:08:17But, for the many of the world's great faiths,
0:08:17 > 0:08:20there is an additional way of gaining knowledge.
0:08:22 > 0:08:28Revelation. Direct communication from God.
0:08:31 > 0:08:35# Every day, oh
0:08:35 > 0:08:38- # Oh, happy day - Oh, happy day
0:08:38 > 0:08:40# Oh, happy day... #
0:08:40 > 0:08:46In 1973, Horizon looked at a scientific study of religious believers.
0:08:46 > 0:08:50- # When Jesus washed - When Jesus washed
0:08:50 > 0:08:53- # All my sins away - All my sins away... #
0:08:53 > 0:09:00Many of the people involved believed that God had revealed himself to them directly.
0:09:00 > 0:09:02# Watch and pray... #
0:09:09 > 0:09:15The study was led by Sir Alister Hardy, a celebrated biologist.
0:09:15 > 0:09:16I've come from zoology
0:09:16 > 0:09:20and I'm looking at religion entirely as a naturalist.
0:09:20 > 0:09:24But I do believe that
0:09:24 > 0:09:28a systematic method can be used to study the records
0:09:28 > 0:09:31of man's religious experience.
0:09:33 > 0:09:37Darwin's theory of the origin of species was based on the painstaking
0:09:37 > 0:09:40collection of huge numbers of observations in natural history.
0:09:40 > 0:09:44In the same way, Professor Hardy hopes these records may form the basis
0:09:44 > 0:09:47of theories about the spiritual nature of man's nature.
0:09:52 > 0:09:59Hardy and colleagues collected hundreds of stories from people who believed they'd experienced God.
0:09:59 > 0:10:04One lady in her 80s had had a vision as a child.
0:10:04 > 0:10:10Suddenly, without warning, I saw right through the physical world.
0:10:10 > 0:10:13Into a realm of great beauty.
0:10:13 > 0:10:16I found myself saying to myself,
0:10:16 > 0:10:20"Well this is, I suppose, what heaven is like."
0:10:22 > 0:10:26Another volunteer believed she had been touched by a divine power.
0:10:26 > 0:10:33Out of my mouth came a few words of a tongue that I didn't recognise at all, a language.
0:10:33 > 0:10:37I can only describe it as something like the disciples
0:10:37 > 0:10:40on the day of Pentecost when they were taken
0:10:40 > 0:10:43for being drunk at 9am in the morning,
0:10:43 > 0:10:45and Peter said, "These people are not drunk,
0:10:45 > 0:10:50"they are filled with the Holy Spirit, because I was so happy,
0:10:50 > 0:10:52"supernaturally happy."
0:10:52 > 0:10:56The volunteers in this study are not alone.
0:10:58 > 0:11:05The belief that God has shown himself to them directly is central to many people's faith.
0:11:05 > 0:11:08But even more believe that God has revealed himself another way...
0:11:08 > 0:11:11ALL: Lord Jesus!
0:11:11 > 0:11:13..through holy texts,
0:11:13 > 0:11:16like the Bible.
0:11:25 > 0:11:32For all religions that have sacred texts, scripture is a source of knowledge and insight.
0:11:32 > 0:11:39But some believers go much further, treating scripture as literally true in every last detail.
0:11:39 > 0:11:44It's this that led to the most intense clash between religion and science of the modern age,
0:11:44 > 0:11:49the creationist crusade against evolution.
0:11:53 > 0:11:55The battleground is America.
0:11:57 > 0:12:01150 years after the bitter debate in Oxford,
0:12:01 > 0:12:06the conflict over the origins of humankind still continues.
0:12:09 > 0:12:16For America's Christian fundamentalists, the Bible is literally the word of God.
0:12:16 > 0:12:18Every phrase is true.
0:12:19 > 0:12:23They believe in creationism,
0:12:23 > 0:12:27that the world came into being just as the Bible describes.
0:12:27 > 0:12:31For them, the theory of evolution cannot be right,
0:12:31 > 0:12:35because it contradicts what's written in Genesis.
0:12:40 > 0:12:48In 2006, Horizon looked at what can happen when science and the Bible conflict.
0:12:51 > 0:12:55Throughout the 20th century, religious communities in America
0:12:55 > 0:13:00fought to prevent the spread of Darwin's dangerous idea.
0:13:00 > 0:13:05In 1925, in an infamous court case in Tennessee,
0:13:05 > 0:13:10high school teacher John Scopes was tried for teaching evolution.
0:13:10 > 0:13:13John Scopes taught at a time when the theory of evolution
0:13:13 > 0:13:17had just been banned from Tennessee classrooms.
0:13:21 > 0:13:25Keen to overthrow the restrictions, he agreed to challenge the law,
0:13:25 > 0:13:29and became a test case for the newly imposed ban.
0:13:31 > 0:13:35NEWSREADER: All attention focuses now on the prospect of an epic debate,
0:13:35 > 0:13:40of science versus religion, reason versus faith.
0:13:40 > 0:13:42This was very much a show trial.
0:13:42 > 0:13:47On the one side, conservative Christians denouncing evolution as immoral.
0:13:47 > 0:13:52On the other, supporters of the right to free speech.
0:13:52 > 0:13:58After eight days of debate, Scopes was found guilty and fined 100.
0:14:01 > 0:14:05But the impact was more than financial.
0:14:07 > 0:14:11In the decades that followed, children across America
0:14:11 > 0:14:15grew up learning little or nothing of Darwin's theory.
0:14:15 > 0:14:22Even into the 1980s, creationism persisted in many American classrooms.
0:14:30 > 0:14:37It just seems that the birth of each individual child is a miracle right there, a miracle you can behold.
0:14:37 > 0:14:44I believe that God created the world in seven days, exactly literally just how he said he did.
0:14:44 > 0:14:46SCHOOL BELL RINGS
0:14:50 > 0:14:55It took 60 years for the creationists to finally lose their battle.
0:14:58 > 0:15:05In 1987, the highest court in America ruled that teaching creationism was unconstitutional.
0:15:05 > 0:15:10It violated the required separation of church and state.
0:15:10 > 0:15:14Creationism was banned from the science curriculum.
0:15:14 > 0:15:16ALL: One nation under God.
0:15:16 > 0:15:20Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
0:15:20 > 0:15:25But despite the ban, creationism hasn't gone away.
0:15:27 > 0:15:31Since the 1980s, polls have consistently found that nearly half
0:15:31 > 0:15:37of all Americans believe God created humans just as it says in the Bible.
0:15:37 > 0:15:40# ..and yet they're saying it's true
0:15:40 > 0:15:43# They're teaching us about it in school now
0:15:43 > 0:15:46# That humans were monkeys once too
0:15:46 > 0:15:49# Whoa, I'm no kin to the monkey, no, no, no
0:15:49 > 0:15:53# The monkey's no kin to me
0:15:53 > 0:15:56# I don't know much about his ancestors
0:15:56 > 0:15:58# But mine didn't swing from a tree. #
0:15:58 > 0:16:04For scientists, ancient religious texts are not sources of knowledge
0:16:04 > 0:16:09about the natural world, and to treat them as if they are is absurd.
0:16:09 > 0:16:15There's no room for the God of biblical creationism in modern science.
0:16:15 > 0:16:18But creationism, like everything else, evolves.
0:16:18 > 0:16:23And in America in the 1990s, a new version emerged,
0:16:23 > 0:16:27claiming it wasn't based on the Bible, but on science.
0:16:29 > 0:16:33This movement is called Intelligent Design.
0:16:33 > 0:16:37Its supporters claim there are things evolution can't explain,
0:16:37 > 0:16:41that the theory is riddled with gaps.
0:16:41 > 0:16:49They say these gaps can only be filled by the work of an intelligent designer.
0:16:56 > 0:17:02One of the theorists behind the idea is the biochemist Michael Behe.
0:17:02 > 0:17:07In the 1990s he decided to take up a challenge set by Darwin.
0:17:09 > 0:17:12He wrote at one point that if it could be
0:17:12 > 0:17:15demonstrated that any complex organ existed
0:17:15 > 0:17:18which could not be put together by numerous
0:17:18 > 0:17:21successive slight modifications,
0:17:21 > 0:17:24he said, "My theory would absolutely break down."
0:17:26 > 0:17:34Darwin's theory relied on the step by step evolution of complex organisms from simpler ones.
0:17:36 > 0:17:41Behe went in search of an organism that didn't fit the theory.
0:17:44 > 0:17:49He became intrigued by a mechanism found amongst a family of microscopic bacteria...
0:17:50 > 0:17:52..the flagellum.
0:17:52 > 0:17:58Bacterial flagellum is literally an outboard motor that bacteria use to swim.
0:18:02 > 0:18:06Although on the surface the flagellum appeared to be simple,
0:18:06 > 0:18:13when Behe looked inside he saw a mechanism made of 50 different interacting parts.
0:18:17 > 0:18:24You can see from the way the parts are situated that this is a machine.
0:18:24 > 0:18:29If just one part was missing, the flagellum appeared to be useless.
0:18:29 > 0:18:33Anything less than whole simply wouldn't work.
0:18:33 > 0:18:35It pointed to one thing,
0:18:35 > 0:18:40that this machine had not evolved from a simpler organism.
0:18:40 > 0:18:43It's really, really difficult to see how it could be put together
0:18:43 > 0:18:48gradually with the thing working and getting better each step of the way.
0:18:49 > 0:18:54I thought to myself, "That's it, that's the problem,
0:18:54 > 0:18:59"that's what Darwin's theory has problems with."
0:18:59 > 0:19:04Behe was certain he had the evidence to challenge Darwin's theory.
0:19:04 > 0:19:08If the flagellum could not have come about through gradual stages,
0:19:08 > 0:19:11it must have been created in its complete form,
0:19:11 > 0:19:17and for that to happen, Behe concluded that there must have been some form of creator.
0:19:20 > 0:19:27In Behe's argument, gaps within evolutionary theory left room for a supreme being,
0:19:27 > 0:19:33an intelligent designer. But there was a problem with this approach.
0:19:33 > 0:19:39Few agreed the gaps proposed in the theory of evolution actually existed.
0:19:39 > 0:19:43And some were willing to go to court to prove it.
0:19:46 > 0:19:52In 2006, Horizon covered a legal challenge to the teaching of Intelligent Design.
0:19:52 > 0:19:54Evolution has been put on trial...
0:19:55 > 0:20:02Once again, the argument was over what was taught in American classrooms.
0:20:02 > 0:20:0911 parents of Dover students are now in court suing the Dover school district
0:20:09 > 0:20:15over exposing their children to a controversial concept called Intelligent Design,
0:20:15 > 0:20:21a theory that they say promotes religion and creates false doubts about evolution.
0:20:28 > 0:20:33The case was brought by the parents of some high school children in Dover, Pennsylvania,
0:20:33 > 0:20:37who were being told about Intelligent Design as part of their science lessons.
0:20:39 > 0:20:46Like the Scopes case 80 years earlier, this was another battle over how knowledge is controlled.
0:20:48 > 0:20:53This time, the argument went right to the heart of the American legal system.
0:20:55 > 0:21:00The constitution of America deliberately separates church and state.
0:21:00 > 0:21:07This separation effectively bans the teaching of religious theories in public schools.
0:21:11 > 0:21:17Supporters of Intelligent Design thought they'd found a way to get round the constitution,
0:21:17 > 0:21:23by making their opposition to evolution scientific, not religious.
0:21:26 > 0:21:34Their tactic was to claim that children have the right to hear both sides of the argument.
0:21:34 > 0:21:38They have developed a very successful PR slogan, it's called Teach The Controversy.
0:21:38 > 0:21:40That's a good little sound bite they use,
0:21:40 > 0:21:42and it appeals to the basic sense of fairness
0:21:42 > 0:21:44that's characteristic of the American public.
0:21:44 > 0:21:52And it's the idea that schoolchildren should hear both sides of a genuine controversy, as they tell it,
0:21:52 > 0:21:57that it's not fair to deny them this opportunity to hear about an alternative scientific theory.
0:22:00 > 0:22:03If Intelligent Design was valid science,
0:22:03 > 0:22:07it could be taught alongside evolution in science lessons.
0:22:11 > 0:22:14But if it was a religious theory, it should be banned.
0:22:17 > 0:22:24In essence, the lawyers were arguing about whether or not Intelligent Design is scientific.
0:22:24 > 0:22:29Should the ninth grade biology students be made aware of the fact
0:22:29 > 0:22:35that there is a controversy in the scientific community about Darwin's theory of evolution?
0:22:36 > 0:22:38Intelligent design is not science,
0:22:38 > 0:22:45it injects a conflict between science and religion where none need exist.
0:22:45 > 0:22:51The positive proposition that life could have been created by an intelligent designer is not science.
0:22:56 > 0:23:01One of the scientists leading the defence of Darwin's theory was biologist Kenneth Miller.
0:23:03 > 0:23:05APPLAUSE
0:23:06 > 0:23:12Miller is a Roman Catholic, and, like many Christians past and present,
0:23:12 > 0:23:16sees no conflict between his faith and evolution.
0:23:16 > 0:23:20In fact, he's spent years campaigning against Intelligent Design.
0:23:20 > 0:23:25These guys have had a field day, and they've captured the popular imagination.
0:23:25 > 0:23:31Miller had drawn together the scientific evidence to respond to intelligent design claims.
0:23:31 > 0:23:35Many bacterium have little flagella, whiplike structures that propel them
0:23:35 > 0:23:39through the cell and you can see them in this electron-micrograph.
0:23:39 > 0:23:42Miller targeted the pillar of intelligent design -
0:23:42 > 0:23:50Michael Behe's argument of irreducible complexity, and it's most vivid example, the flagellum.
0:23:50 > 0:23:55The notion of intelligent design or irreducible complexity makes a prediction
0:23:55 > 0:23:58that if intelligent design is the proper explanation,
0:23:58 > 0:24:01then the parts of these complex machines should be useless on their own
0:24:01 > 0:24:05because all the parts have to be there to have any function whatsoever.
0:24:07 > 0:24:13Miller quickly discovered, amongst the scientific literature, evidence that challenged Behe.
0:24:13 > 0:24:19Within other bacteria, there was a simpler, fully-functioning mechanism.
0:24:21 > 0:24:28This system is missing 40 of its 50 parts, 80% and it is perfectly functioning.
0:24:28 > 0:24:31So the kindest thing one can say about this claim,
0:24:31 > 0:24:35which is the essential claim of irreducible complexity and intelligent design
0:24:35 > 0:24:39is that it's wrong - it is simply wrong on the basis of the science.
0:24:39 > 0:24:45Miller had shown that the flagellum was not too complex to have evolved.
0:24:45 > 0:24:50It did not need an intelligent designer.
0:24:53 > 0:25:00In two days of testimony, Miller addressed the arguments for intelligent design one by one.
0:25:00 > 0:25:05In Miller's view, and the view of the vast majority of the scientific community,
0:25:05 > 0:25:10the gaps that the intelligent design theorists saw just did not exist.
0:25:10 > 0:25:17And in December 2005, the judgment was handed down.
0:25:17 > 0:25:23A US court has banned a school in Pennsylvania from teaching intelligent design,
0:25:23 > 0:25:28as an alternative to evolution in biology classes. The federal judge said...
0:25:28 > 0:25:35The judge ruled there was a clear religious purpose behind intelligent design.
0:25:37 > 0:25:40Its supporters hadn't exposed gaps within evolution.
0:25:40 > 0:25:45It was a religious view, not a scientific one,
0:25:45 > 0:25:48and had no place in the classroom.
0:25:50 > 0:25:56Intelligent design has received some support by its claim to stand for intellectual freedom.
0:25:56 > 0:25:59But that's about the only support it has received.
0:25:59 > 0:26:03Virtually no scientists think it's a credible alternative to evolution.
0:26:03 > 0:26:06Even most theologians are against it.
0:26:06 > 0:26:12Placing God in gaps in scientific understanding is not a good strategy.
0:26:12 > 0:26:18The history of science shows that those gaps have a tendency to be filled.
0:26:25 > 0:26:28Society is sceptical nowadays.
0:26:28 > 0:26:31Ideas of death and catastrophe from the sky
0:26:31 > 0:26:34belong to ancient times, before the age of science
0:26:34 > 0:26:38when superstition made people petrified of the heavens.
0:26:43 > 0:26:48The heavens were seen as a source of wonder and potential global disaster.
0:26:51 > 0:26:55Then came the Age of Enlightenment and all was to change.
0:26:58 > 0:27:00As scientific knowledge has expanded,
0:27:00 > 0:27:07events that used to be seen as acts of God, have been explained by natural causes.
0:27:10 > 0:27:18Volcanoes, named after the Roman God of fire, are the result of immense heat inside the Earth.
0:27:23 > 0:27:31Floods, the ultimate sign of God's wrath in the Old Testament, are caused by fluctuations in climate.
0:27:34 > 0:27:42And biblical plagues of locusts may have been the natural result of a sudden growth in numbers.
0:27:44 > 0:27:49So is there any room left for God in unexpected events?
0:28:00 > 0:28:04The most personal of all acts of God are miracles of healing.
0:28:09 > 0:28:17In 1988, the neuroscientist Colin Blakemore, visited the shrine of Lourdes on behalf of BBC Science.
0:28:20 > 0:28:24A famous Roman Catholic pilgrimage site, Lourdes is the focal point
0:28:24 > 0:28:29of millions of people hoping for their own miracle.
0:28:29 > 0:28:34Sylvia had been told by doctor eight years ago she was terminally ill.
0:28:34 > 0:28:37You accepted that you had six months to live.
0:28:37 > 0:28:39Nothing I could do about it.
0:28:39 > 0:28:42There was something you did about it.
0:28:42 > 0:28:48Yes, I came to Lourdes and whilst I was in Lourdes I was in St Bernadette's hospital.
0:28:48 > 0:28:51It had only opened the week before. or the fortnight before.
0:28:51 > 0:28:56I used to always go into the little chapel,
0:28:56 > 0:29:01and this particular day, well, it was evening it was the night before we came away
0:29:01 > 0:29:03and I went in and I just sat
0:29:03 > 0:29:09and there's a little grotto of Our Lady and I just sat and I cried and cried.
0:29:09 > 0:29:13I don't know how many people was in and I never said a prayer or anything,
0:29:13 > 0:29:17but something at that moment said, "Don't worry, you're going to be all right'
0:29:17 > 0:29:20"and I've been smashing ever since. "
0:29:20 > 0:29:23When is a cure a miracle?
0:29:23 > 0:29:27That's a question that the authorities at Lourdes have taken very seriously.
0:29:27 > 0:29:32In 1882, a panel of medical experts now called the Bureau Medicale de Lourdes
0:29:32 > 0:29:37was set up to investigate claims of miraculous cures.
0:29:37 > 0:29:41In the 130 years since Bernadette saw the Virgin Mary,
0:29:41 > 0:29:47thousands of cures have been claimed and 64 have been declared miracles.
0:29:47 > 0:29:53The list of diseases for which claims of miracles has been accepted has changed over the years,
0:29:53 > 0:30:00as medical science discovered its own cures for such illnesses as tuberculosis and polio.
0:30:00 > 0:30:06For many years, the authorities here have applied every sceptical test they can to the numerous claims.
0:30:06 > 0:30:10Only if no conventional treatment has been given can a miracle be declared.
0:30:15 > 0:30:20The church itself uses science to identify where God may be at work.
0:30:24 > 0:30:28What's more, science has begun to suggest other means
0:30:28 > 0:30:33by which apparently extraordinary healing might take place.
0:30:38 > 0:30:44The Mind Machine programme looked at research into what's known as the "placebo effect" -
0:30:44 > 0:30:47a phenomenon in which people can feel the effects of medical treatment
0:30:47 > 0:30:50just by believing in its power.
0:30:50 > 0:30:53How are you doing?
0:30:53 > 0:30:54OK.
0:30:54 > 0:30:57It's been suspected for a long time that the effectiveness
0:30:57 > 0:31:01of medical treatment depends partly on the patient's faith in it.
0:31:01 > 0:31:04This power of belief, the placebo effect,
0:31:04 > 0:31:10offers hope that the mind can heal the body, or at least reduce pain.
0:31:10 > 0:31:14John Levine has been studying just how the placebo effect works
0:31:14 > 0:31:16and today he's going to assess its effectiveness.
0:31:18 > 0:31:24John and his colleagues took young, healthy volunteers who were having their wisdom teeth removed.
0:31:25 > 0:31:29After the operation, these volunteers were given
0:31:29 > 0:31:33a completely inert saline solution instead of pain relief.
0:31:36 > 0:31:39The only difference between these two men is that one of them
0:31:39 > 0:31:47is being given the saline solution by a doctor in a white coat, the other by a computer they can't see.
0:31:49 > 0:31:54Will the two patients experience different levels of pain?
0:31:54 > 0:31:55ALARM RINGS
0:31:55 > 0:31:5920 minutes later, time for the patients to report
0:31:59 > 0:32:01on the amount of pain they feel.
0:32:01 > 0:32:05- How much are you having now?- Let's take it here. It's getting close.
0:32:05 > 0:32:06Since the last time,
0:32:06 > 0:32:09- has it gone up or down or stayed the same?- It's gone up a bit.- OK.
0:32:11 > 0:32:15No pain to worse pain ever, make one mark through that line as to how much pain you're having now.
0:32:15 > 0:32:17OK.
0:32:17 > 0:32:21Since the last time, has the pain gone up, gone down or stayed the same?
0:32:21 > 0:32:23The pain has gone down.
0:32:23 > 0:32:27So why this dramatic difference between the two?
0:32:27 > 0:32:33The white coat represents to the patient that same image
0:32:33 > 0:32:40of an individual who has power to provide a healing effect on them.
0:32:41 > 0:32:44In other words, the painkilling effect that this man felt
0:32:44 > 0:32:51wasn't down to an anaesthetic, but to believing a caring doctor was relieving his pain.
0:32:52 > 0:32:56Belief, it seems, can be very powerful.
0:32:59 > 0:33:03For Colin Blakemore, this power of belief was key at Lourdes.
0:33:06 > 0:33:11Despite its appearance, this isn't a hospital but is an "accueil" at Lourdes -
0:33:11 > 0:33:13a kind of reception centre for pilgrims.
0:33:13 > 0:33:16Most of the people wearing nurses' uniforms aren't nurses either,
0:33:16 > 0:33:19but it all adds up to an atmosphere of care and authority
0:33:19 > 0:33:23which may really help people to deal with their suffering.
0:33:28 > 0:33:32Science suggests that the comfort and healing many have found at Lourdes
0:33:32 > 0:33:35may not come from God but from the power of the human mind.
0:33:35 > 0:33:43So another place where many believe God operates has begun to be squeezed by science.
0:33:43 > 0:33:47And new technology has allowed scientists to probe even deeper.
0:33:57 > 0:34:05As technology has improved, it has created new ways of looking at the world.
0:34:05 > 0:34:09and allowed researchers access to a hidden realm...
0:34:11 > 0:34:13..inside the human brain.
0:34:18 > 0:34:22By visualising and measuring the workings of the brain,
0:34:22 > 0:34:26scientists have begun to investigate our thoughts and feelings.
0:34:31 > 0:34:36It's led some to raise questions about the religious feelings of the faithful.
0:34:38 > 0:34:40And that's partly down to this...
0:34:40 > 0:34:42CHOIR SINGS
0:34:43 > 0:34:45..a device known as...
0:34:46 > 0:34:48..the "God helmet".
0:34:48 > 0:34:53The helmet was basically designed to generate weak magnetic fields
0:34:53 > 0:34:56across the hemispheres, specifically the temporal lobe.
0:34:56 > 0:34:58The way it's set up is that each pair
0:34:58 > 0:35:01of the solenoids are connected so that at any given time
0:35:01 > 0:35:03a magnetic field passes through the helmet
0:35:03 > 0:35:05and hence through the brain.
0:35:08 > 0:35:13Dr Michael Persinger claimed that, by stimulating the temporal lobes,
0:35:13 > 0:35:15he could artificially induce
0:35:15 > 0:35:18religious experience in almost anyone.
0:35:22 > 0:35:27Don Hill was one of Persinger's volunteers.
0:35:27 > 0:35:30It's not so much I felt like there was somebody or something
0:35:30 > 0:35:32in the chamber with me,
0:35:32 > 0:35:35because my common sense told me that this could not be.
0:35:35 > 0:35:41But I could not get rid of the feeling that there was something there.
0:35:41 > 0:35:44Yet, how could this be? There's nothing there.
0:35:44 > 0:35:46I'm in a space that's safe.
0:35:46 > 0:35:51'My palms are sweating. I'm seeing visual dips and dots.'
0:35:52 > 0:35:55Don had experienced one of the most common and bizarre effects
0:35:55 > 0:36:00in the chamber, a feeling that someone else was in there with him.
0:36:00 > 0:36:03Dr Persinger called this feeling "the sensed presence".
0:36:03 > 0:36:07The fundamental experience is the sensed presence,
0:36:07 > 0:36:13and our data indicate that the sensed presence, the feeling of another entity of something beyond yourself,
0:36:13 > 0:36:16perhaps bigger than yourself, bigger in space and bigger in time,
0:36:16 > 0:36:21can be stimulated by simply activating the right hemisphere, particularly the temporal lobe.
0:36:28 > 0:36:35Horizon decided to set Persinger's theories and the God helmet the ultimate test -
0:36:35 > 0:36:41to give a religious experience to one of the world's most strident atheists.
0:36:41 > 0:36:44Professor Richard Dawkins.
0:36:47 > 0:36:53Can Dr Persinger succeed where the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Dalai Lama have failed?
0:36:53 > 0:36:58If I became a religious believer, my wife would threaten to leave me.
0:37:07 > 0:37:10Feeling slightly dizzy.
0:37:15 > 0:37:17Quite strange.
0:37:18 > 0:37:25To increase the chances of feeling a sensed presence, Dr Persinger started to apply the magnetic field
0:37:25 > 0:37:29to both sides of the head.
0:37:30 > 0:37:34A twitchiness in my breathing, I don't know what that is.
0:37:42 > 0:37:45My left leg is sort of moving.
0:37:45 > 0:37:48Right leg is twitching.
0:37:55 > 0:38:02So, after 40 minutes, had Richard Dawkins been brought closer to God?
0:38:02 > 0:38:09Unfortunately, I didn't get the sensation of the presence.
0:38:09 > 0:38:14It pretty much felt as though I was in total darkness,
0:38:14 > 0:38:17erm, with a helmet on my head,
0:38:17 > 0:38:22and, er, pleasantly relaxed.
0:38:22 > 0:38:24And occasionally feeling the sensations
0:38:24 > 0:38:27which I described as they occurred.
0:38:27 > 0:38:34But I would be hard put to it to swear that those were not things that could happen to me any time
0:38:34 > 0:38:35on a dark night.
0:38:38 > 0:38:42Richard Dawkins may not have had a religious experience,
0:38:42 > 0:38:49but 80% of Persinger's volunteers did feel a presence of some kind whilst wearing the God helmet.
0:38:53 > 0:38:57The findings of this study are controversial,
0:38:57 > 0:39:01but Horizon went on to look at research into people
0:39:01 > 0:39:06who have religious experiences without the help of technology.
0:39:06 > 0:39:10Dr Andrew Newberg injected Buddhists with a radioactive tracer,
0:39:10 > 0:39:14as they reached the height of their meditation.
0:39:16 > 0:39:22The tracer was then carried into the bloodstream and up to the brain, allowing an image to be captured.
0:39:36 > 0:39:40The scans measured blood flow, with red showing the areas
0:39:40 > 0:39:43with highest blood flow and yellow the areas with lowest.
0:39:45 > 0:39:47As meditation reached its peak...
0:39:53 > 0:39:59..an area of the brain called the parietal lobes had less and less blood flowing into them.
0:39:59 > 0:40:01They seemed almost to be shutting down.
0:40:03 > 0:40:06This was significant new information.
0:40:06 > 0:40:11The parietal lobes help give us our sense of time and place.
0:40:11 > 0:40:16This part of the brain typically takes all of our sensory information
0:40:16 > 0:40:20and uses that sensory information to create a sense of ourselves.
0:40:20 > 0:40:25When people meditate they frequently describe a loss of that sense of self
0:40:25 > 0:40:27and that's exactly what we saw in the meditation subjects,
0:40:27 > 0:40:33that they actually decreased the activity in this parietal or this orientation part of the brain.
0:40:37 > 0:40:41This strange sensation of a loss of self
0:40:41 > 0:40:47is central to religious feelings in all the world's faiths.
0:40:50 > 0:40:57Buddhists seek a feeling of oneness with the universe, Hindus strive for the soul and God to become one
0:40:57 > 0:41:01and the Catholics search for the unio mystica.
0:41:11 > 0:41:17Dr Newberg wondered if these very different religions might actually be describing the same thing.
0:41:17 > 0:41:22To test this theory, he took scans of Franciscan nuns at prayer,
0:41:22 > 0:41:27to see if there was any similarity between what was going on in their brains and those of Buddhists.
0:41:29 > 0:41:33Interestingly, when we look at the Franciscan nuns, we see a similar decrease
0:41:33 > 0:41:37in the orientation part of the brain as we saw with the Tibetan Buddhists.
0:41:43 > 0:41:46Even though Buddhists and Catholics may come from very different
0:41:46 > 0:41:49religious traditions, how their minds react
0:41:49 > 0:41:56to deep meditation or prayer seems, in terms of brain chemistry, to be exactly the same process.
0:41:56 > 0:41:59PRAYERS RECITED
0:42:03 > 0:42:07Research like this has started to demystify religious experiences.
0:42:07 > 0:42:14For some, it suggests these experiences are not produced by God, but simply by the brain.
0:42:14 > 0:42:19And thanks to the God helmet, it seems you may not even need God to sense his presence.
0:42:19 > 0:42:22That feeling can be artificially created.
0:42:22 > 0:42:26So, there's no need for God at all.
0:42:29 > 0:42:36As science has filled in gaps in our knowledge, the mysterious has become more understandable,
0:42:36 > 0:42:41and God seems to have been pushed into smaller and smaller crevices.
0:42:42 > 0:42:46But there is another way of thinking about God's role.
0:42:46 > 0:42:50Perhaps He doesn't act on the small individual scale.
0:42:53 > 0:42:59He's not the God of the meager flagellum, tinkering with the mechanics of each organism.
0:42:59 > 0:43:04He didn't create every single species on this planet individually.
0:43:13 > 0:43:18Maybe instead, He's a grand inventor, a God of the big picture,
0:43:18 > 0:43:22who drew the blueprints of creation.
0:43:22 > 0:43:24Maybe he's behind the laws of the universe.
0:43:24 > 0:43:29The author of the whole of nature.
0:43:31 > 0:43:40This was the God Darwin wrote of in The Origin Of Species - a creator laying down the laws.
0:43:40 > 0:43:47And even today, some scientists look at the world and see it as God's work.
0:43:47 > 0:43:49So is it here that there's room for God?
0:43:49 > 0:43:53Not in the gaps of our understanding, but within the very laws of nature?
0:43:59 > 0:44:05There are no more extraordinary laws than the ones that govern the universe.
0:44:05 > 0:44:07The laws of creation.
0:44:08 > 0:44:15Our most famous scientists have dedicated their lives to trying to reveal them.
0:44:16 > 0:44:20One of Newton's great insights was into gravity.
0:44:23 > 0:44:31In a single equation, he explained not just why apples fall, but why the planets stay in orbit.
0:44:32 > 0:44:36The equation was majestic in its scope.
0:44:36 > 0:44:40What applied on Earth, he said, also applied in the heavens.
0:44:40 > 0:44:44And it all worked like clockwork.
0:44:47 > 0:44:53For Einstein, the equation was smaller, but the claims were just as big.
0:44:53 > 0:44:56E = mc2.
0:44:56 > 0:45:01Energy is mass.
0:45:01 > 0:45:06It was simple, elegant and profound.
0:45:07 > 0:45:13Both Newton and Einstein saw a divine beauty in the clarity and order
0:45:13 > 0:45:16of these mathematical laws.
0:45:16 > 0:45:20Understanding the workings of the universe, they believed,
0:45:20 > 0:45:24was like looking into the mind of God.
0:45:28 > 0:45:35But in the last 100 years, this beautiful simplicity has been shattered.
0:45:37 > 0:45:42By an explosion of scientific discovery.
0:45:42 > 0:45:46And now the divine beauty of the Newtonian clockwork universe,
0:45:46 > 0:45:54and even the classical physics of Einstein have been obscured by bewildering complexity.
0:46:00 > 0:46:01The up quark, the down quark,
0:46:01 > 0:46:07the electron, the electron neutrino, the W plus and the W minus.
0:46:07 > 0:46:11Physicists speak of strange, outlandish particles.
0:46:11 > 0:46:14The basic building blocks of matter.
0:46:14 > 0:46:18The charm quark, the strange quark, the muon, the mu-neutrino.
0:46:18 > 0:46:24And they show these building blocks can, at the same time, be both waves and particles.
0:46:24 > 0:46:28Top quark, bottom quark, the tao
0:46:28 > 0:46:30and the tao-neutrino.
0:46:30 > 0:46:33The Z particle and the photon.
0:46:33 > 0:46:40The new physics talks of uncertainty, of things being in two places at once.
0:46:40 > 0:46:42Oh, no!
0:46:42 > 0:46:44The gluon.
0:46:44 > 0:46:46I forget the gluon.
0:46:54 > 0:47:01The universe is so strange that even cosmologists don't claim to understand what's going on.
0:47:01 > 0:47:08Especially when it comes to exotic substances like dark matter, and dark energy.
0:47:10 > 0:47:13We have no idea what dark energy is.
0:47:14 > 0:47:17Dark energy is basically a fancy word
0:47:17 > 0:47:21for our ignorance of what makes up 75% of our universe.
0:47:21 > 0:47:24Well, I know but I'm not going to tell you.
0:47:25 > 0:47:30Actually no, I've no idea what it is. I hope it goes away.
0:47:30 > 0:47:32I don't like it.
0:47:35 > 0:47:41Well, it's dark and it's expanding. I guess a pictorial way to describe Dark Energy like any other, as good
0:47:41 > 0:47:45as any other, we don't know what it is, we might as well say it's this.
0:47:45 > 0:47:49They say God works in mysterious ways.
0:47:49 > 0:47:52These ways are really mysterious.
0:47:59 > 0:48:06With so much still unknown, the drive to understand the laws of the universe is greater than ever.
0:48:08 > 0:48:13In 2007, Horizon visited the Large Hadron Collider,
0:48:13 > 0:48:19the machine charged with finding what physicists believe is a missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle.
0:48:22 > 0:48:24They call it the Higgs particle,
0:48:24 > 0:48:30but it's so key to understanding our universe it's been nicknamed
0:48:30 > 0:48:32the God particle.
0:48:35 > 0:48:40The best theory we have at the moment for the origin of mass
0:48:40 > 0:48:44or what makes stuff "stuff" is called the Higgs mechanism.
0:48:47 > 0:48:51And the Higgs mechanism works by filling the universe with...
0:48:51 > 0:48:53with a thing. It's almost like treacle.
0:48:58 > 0:49:01So far, the Higgs has eluded physicists,
0:49:01 > 0:49:06but they hope the Large Hadron Collider will reveal it.
0:49:06 > 0:49:11By going back to a moment that has been hidden from view.
0:49:11 > 0:49:13The time just after the Big Bang.
0:49:13 > 0:49:18What it does, it recreates the conditions that were presen
0:49:18 > 0:49:21t less than a billionth of a second after the Big Bang,
0:49:21 > 0:49:26but in a controlled environment, inside giant detectors.
0:49:27 > 0:49:31You can repeat that over and over again, and study it in exquisite detail.
0:49:31 > 0:49:36In some ways, it's almost better than going back to the start of the universe and watching,
0:49:36 > 0:49:38because you only get one chance to watch it.
0:49:40 > 0:49:46Perhaps what's most striking about the search for the Higgs is where it may take us.
0:49:46 > 0:49:49Some scientists believe its discovery could lead
0:49:49 > 0:49:53to an extraordinary level of insight about the universe.
0:49:54 > 0:49:56If, in fact,
0:49:56 > 0:50:01we can get over the Higgs Particle, it may be that we can go a long way
0:50:01 > 0:50:04towards the horizon of a total understanding.
0:50:09 > 0:50:12Total understanding.
0:50:12 > 0:50:16These scientists have set their sights high.
0:50:16 > 0:50:23It's not surprising some think cosmology is straying into the realm of God.
0:50:26 > 0:50:30Modern science has developed ever more ingenious ways
0:50:30 > 0:50:33to unlock the mysteries of the physical universe.
0:50:33 > 0:50:36But, no matter how many questions it answers,
0:50:36 > 0:50:38there are always more to ask.
0:50:38 > 0:50:41And perhaps the biggest of all is why?
0:50:41 > 0:50:44Why is our universe the way it is?
0:50:47 > 0:50:51The fact that our world exists as it is
0:50:51 > 0:50:53is extraordinarily improbable.
0:50:54 > 0:50:56Right from the beginning,
0:50:56 > 0:51:00the conditions for us to develop had to be just right.
0:51:08 > 0:51:11Take gravity, for example.
0:51:13 > 0:51:18If the force of gravity had been just slightly stronger,
0:51:18 > 0:51:21the universe could have collapsed before planets and stars
0:51:21 > 0:51:23had a chance to form.
0:51:23 > 0:51:27If gravity had been only fractionally weaker,
0:51:27 > 0:51:30gas may never have formed into stars at all.
0:51:30 > 0:51:34Only because gravity is just as it is
0:51:34 > 0:51:37are we here on Earth.
0:51:41 > 0:51:46In 1987, Horizon looked at the apparently extraordinary coincidence
0:51:46 > 0:51:50that the universe enables life, us, to exist.
0:51:54 > 0:51:56The existence of life on earth is
0:51:56 > 0:51:59very delicately balanced in the scales of chance.
0:51:59 > 0:52:03The list of things that had to come out just right is enormous.
0:52:03 > 0:52:08It turns out that if you change just a little bit, the laws of nature,
0:52:08 > 0:52:14then the way the universe develops is so changed that it's very likely that
0:52:14 > 0:52:16intelligent life would not be able to develop.
0:52:16 > 0:52:23If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction,
0:52:23 > 0:52:26then stars burn out within a million years of their formation,
0:52:26 > 0:52:28- no time for evolution.
0:52:28 > 0:52:32And if we nudge it just a few percent in the other direction,
0:52:32 > 0:52:34then no elements heavier than helium form,
0:52:34 > 0:52:39so no carbon, no life, not even any chemistry.
0:52:39 > 0:52:41No complexity at all.
0:52:41 > 0:52:45The really amazing thing is not that life on earth is balanced on a knife edge,
0:52:45 > 0:52:48but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife edge,
0:52:48 > 0:52:51the entire universe seems unreasonably suited
0:52:51 > 0:52:54to the existence of life. Almost contrived.
0:52:54 > 0:52:56We might say "a put up job".
0:53:01 > 0:53:05Some have seen the sheer improbability of our existence
0:53:05 > 0:53:08as evidence of a higher being.
0:53:08 > 0:53:16But eminent physicists, most notably Stephen Hawking, have come out firmly against the idea.
0:53:19 > 0:53:23And some physicists have an extraordinary explanation
0:53:23 > 0:53:28for why our universe is so suited to humankind -
0:53:28 > 0:53:31our universe is not alone.
0:53:34 > 0:53:39There may, in fact, be multiple universes.
0:53:39 > 0:53:45Perhaps, even, an infinite number, each different to its neighbour.
0:53:45 > 0:53:51In these other universes, the gravitational constant might be different.
0:53:51 > 0:53:55Or the heavier elements might not have formed.
0:53:57 > 0:54:02And so, there may be no-one there to observe these other universes,
0:54:02 > 0:54:05because the conditions haven't created life.
0:54:13 > 0:54:20Brain-stretching as it is, there are theoretical reasons why some believe this is the case.
0:54:20 > 0:54:25In fact, in a 2010 Horizon programme about infinitely,
0:54:25 > 0:54:28one cosmologist claimed it was the most likely answer.
0:54:36 > 0:54:41What isn't appreciated by many, even in the physics community,
0:54:41 > 0:54:44is this model, these infinitely many, infinite universes
0:54:44 > 0:54:48is probably our current best bet
0:54:48 > 0:54:51as to what the real universe looks like.
0:54:51 > 0:54:58It's baffling and mind bending, but that's where our road of cosmology has taken us.
0:55:08 > 0:55:12It's easy to be sceptical about multiple universes.
0:55:13 > 0:55:14After all,
0:55:14 > 0:55:16even if they do exist, they are impossible to see
0:55:16 > 0:55:19and even many physicists think they're impossible to test.
0:55:19 > 0:55:23For me, this is a point where science and religion
0:55:23 > 0:55:27begin to look like they're not so different after all.
0:55:30 > 0:55:33In this programme we've journeyed through science
0:55:33 > 0:55:38asking if, in this modern age, there is room for God.
0:55:42 > 0:55:46We've looked for God in the gaps of scientific understanding.
0:55:46 > 0:55:51And seen how new discoveries can close those gaps.
0:55:54 > 0:55:56We've looked for God in the grandest laws of nature,
0:55:56 > 0:56:00and in the mind-bending strangeness of the universe.
0:56:01 > 0:56:05Science can describe so much about our world...
0:56:05 > 0:56:08and constantly pushes the boundaries of our knowledge.
0:56:10 > 0:56:13But many still wonder why?
0:56:14 > 0:56:16Why does anything exist at all?
0:56:16 > 0:56:20Why do we humans find ourselves here?
0:56:22 > 0:56:24And what's it all for?
0:56:26 > 0:56:30As science has developed, the idea of a God who works wonders,
0:56:30 > 0:56:32who acts in the gaps of scientific understanding
0:56:32 > 0:56:35has been called into question.
0:56:37 > 0:56:40And suppose that science continues to progress...
0:56:40 > 0:56:47imagine a day when scientists have a total understanding of our universe.
0:56:47 > 0:56:50Would the idea of God then go away?
0:56:51 > 0:56:53I don't think so.
0:56:53 > 0:56:58Because belief gives something that science doesn't claim to offer -
0:56:58 > 0:57:01meaning and purpose.
0:57:05 > 0:57:07What's more,
0:57:07 > 0:57:12even the findings of science hint that religion is unlikely to disappear.
0:57:13 > 0:57:21For some, research insto the human brain suggests it's biology that predisposes us to believe in God.
0:57:21 > 0:57:27Others may say God hard-wired us to be able to communicate with Him.
0:57:31 > 0:57:35Whatever the reality, even the most hardened critics
0:57:35 > 0:57:39agree our brains mean God is here to stay.
0:57:39 > 0:57:44The human religious impulse does seem very difficult to wipe out,
0:57:44 > 0:57:47which causes me a certain amount of grief.
0:57:47 > 0:57:52Clearly, religion has extreme tenacity.
0:57:57 > 0:58:03Whether or not God exists, it seems we find it very easy to believe in Him.
0:58:03 > 0:58:07Because the brain seems to be designed the way it is,
0:58:07 > 0:58:13and because religion and spirituality seem to be built so well into that kind of function,
0:58:13 > 0:58:15the concepts of God and religion
0:58:15 > 0:58:18are going to be around for a very, very long time.
0:58:26 > 0:58:29Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd
0:58:29 > 0:58:32E-mail subtitling@bbc.co.uk