:00:07. > :00:24.Today on The Big Questions: Fat cats, strikes, and today's wise men.
:00:25. > :00:32.Welcome to the tenth series of The Big Questions.
:00:33. > :00:33.Today we're live from Brunel University London.
:00:34. > :00:40.Welcome, everyone, to The Big Questions.
:00:41. > :00:42.This Wednesday was dubbed Fat Cat Day, when Britain's top
:00:43. > :00:45.bosses earned as much after two and a half days'
:00:46. > :00:47.effort as the average UK worker gets for a whole year -
:00:48. > :00:56.The chief executives of the top FTSE 100 companies earned on average
:00:57. > :00:59.just under ?4 million - that's each, not between them.
:01:00. > :01:06.The top earner, Sir Martin Sorrell of the advertising agency WPP,
:01:07. > :01:08.banked over ?70 million in 2015, the latest year
:01:09. > :01:14.The national living wage for over 25s is just ?7.20 an hour.
:01:15. > :01:25.You think that this has got a really detrimental effect on society as a
:01:26. > :01:29.whole. Explain what you mean. We know that in countries where there
:01:30. > :01:33.are higher levels of inequality, illustrated by this gap in pay, that
:01:34. > :01:38.there are higher levels of violence, mental ill health, higher levels of
:01:39. > :01:45.physical ill health, and poorer education. This affects everybody,
:01:46. > :01:49.whether you are earning ?77 million or ?28,000. Why does it have that
:01:50. > :01:55.effect on people? We're not talking about a Sheeran and Wayne Rooney.
:01:56. > :02:00.Specifically people who are CEO of a company. It is symptomatic of a
:02:01. > :02:06.highly divided society. The UK is the six most unequal country in the
:02:07. > :02:08.OECD. We know that they and other organisations like the IMF are
:02:09. > :02:12.paying inequality is a very bad thing for society and they are
:02:13. > :02:19.worried about it in economic terms as well. It is about inequality,
:02:20. > :02:25.isn't it? Supposedly so. What do you mean by supposedly? It depends on
:02:26. > :02:29.whether you think inequality is a good or bad thing and whether that
:02:30. > :02:34.means anything. Let me rephrase the question. Is inequality a good or a
:02:35. > :02:40.bad thing? I would prefer to refrain to answer that because I prefer to
:02:41. > :02:43.look at what it means for people to live with. Interesting. If you look
:02:44. > :02:48.at firms with higher levels of income inequality, they tend to have
:02:49. > :02:59.higher operational performance and they tend to have longer-term
:03:00. > :03:02.returns for shareholders. What that means is that if you are in one of
:03:03. > :03:06.those firms as low paid worker, what you really want is guilty in your
:03:07. > :03:09.job and to know there is talent at the top. It doesn't necessarily
:03:10. > :03:14.matter how much the person at the top is being paid. What you don't
:03:15. > :03:18.want is for them to walk off and for you to be left with a company that
:03:19. > :03:22.is not worth as much. You want to be working with a company whose share
:03:23. > :03:25.price is doing well and you want to know there is talent at the top. We
:03:26. > :03:29.live in a world where companies are getting bigger and bigger so people
:03:30. > :03:36.are being paid more to run them. Because they are larger, and so
:03:37. > :03:39.asking questions about whether inequality is good or bad doesn't
:03:40. > :03:47.necessarily tell us what is good for the work on the ground. If you did
:03:48. > :03:52.get rid of the top people because of the pay, and they went elsewhere...
:03:53. > :03:57.But if pay doesn't matter, why not cut the pay? We don't know that
:03:58. > :04:00.cutting pay improves performance. The illustration is that it doesn't
:04:01. > :04:08.do that. Capping pay doesn't improve performance. Shareholders, fund
:04:09. > :04:13.managers are getting more active as shareholders, they do cut pay and do
:04:14. > :04:20.a of things like improving innovation, and they do more like
:04:21. > :04:23.bringing up the value of the company through the operations, but they
:04:24. > :04:27.don't cut pay to do that. So it is more compact than headline about
:04:28. > :04:31.inequality? Having been a low paid worker myself at times, like many
:04:32. > :04:36.people here, I wasn't thinking about the share price of the company. When
:04:37. > :04:41.I was trying to make ends meet I wasn't thinking that. I wasn't
:04:42. > :04:45.thinking it was all OK because if we keep the same buzz at the top you
:04:46. > :04:52.will look after us. That is a really paternalistic view. -- the same boss
:04:53. > :04:57.at the top, he will look after us. It doesn't matter who is at the top.
:04:58. > :05:02.Whether the CEO does well or badly, they are still being paid obscene
:05:03. > :05:05.amounts of money. Are these amounts of money obscene? They are extremely
:05:06. > :05:09.high but there are two questioned here. Are they being paid more than
:05:10. > :05:13.they are worth to the company? And other workers worse off as a result?
:05:14. > :05:18.The answer to the first question is no. In general the CEO matters
:05:19. > :05:21.enormously and having a good one can mean not just the difference between
:05:22. > :05:27.profit and loss but life and death for a big company. On the second
:05:28. > :05:31.point, the ordinary worker, I have had very low paid jobs as well and I
:05:32. > :05:34.didn't care what the share price was. I did care about job security
:05:35. > :05:37.and about that company being competitive and I did care about
:05:38. > :05:42.knowing that next week and next month that my wages might be a bit
:05:43. > :05:44.higher. The weighted get that is not capping it at the top and not
:05:45. > :05:49.driving the talent away from the UK. It is to get the best leaders and
:05:50. > :05:52.the best people at the bottom. Let me finish. I wish we would spend
:05:53. > :05:55.less time worrying about how much people at the top are paid and more
:05:56. > :06:04.time thinking about the wages at the bottom. It isn't and either or
:06:05. > :06:10.situation. When you look at some companies, like Sport Direct, the
:06:11. > :06:13.wages and conditions for the workers are appalling and the leaders are
:06:14. > :06:19.paid a lot. Getting rid of the talent at the top is not going to
:06:20. > :06:24.make things better for the workers. The corporate welfare is coming in,
:06:25. > :06:29.the ?40 billion subsidy to the pensions, that is being creamed off
:06:30. > :06:32.by the managers at the top making huge bonuses. Huge quantitive easing
:06:33. > :06:38.been put into the banking system to rescue it. Meanwhile wages haven't
:06:39. > :06:44.recovered to pre-2008 levels. This doesn't make sense. They are not
:06:45. > :06:50.seeing the benefits. The top 1% pay the majority of all income tax. 90%
:06:51. > :06:53.of people earn less than ?50,000 in this country. It is a very small
:06:54. > :06:58.number right at the top creaming off excess profit. And paying a lot of
:06:59. > :07:05.income tax. But your hands up, audience. I am sure you have an
:07:06. > :07:10.opinion. One of the answers that has been suggested is to have workers on
:07:11. > :07:14.remuneration committees, which would be more collegiate way of doing it.
:07:15. > :07:19.Make that argument. I think it be more realistic as a conversation
:07:20. > :07:23.based on the real experiences of the workforce. One of the reasons why
:07:24. > :07:25.the huge numbers come out at the end of the process is because everyone
:07:26. > :07:29.around the table is used to massive numbers and they are very highly
:07:30. > :07:35.paid professionals desensitised to the public reaction when we hear how
:07:36. > :07:41.many millions. So put members of the workforce in there to test these
:07:42. > :07:48.huge pay packets and see why they are being awarded. They tried it in
:07:49. > :07:52.Germany, workers on boards. And in the companies where it was tried,
:07:53. > :07:58.they had far lower value than probable companies without workers
:07:59. > :08:03.on the board. How are you measuring value? Worker satisfaction? Happy
:08:04. > :08:07.families? Quality of life or just purely shareholder profit? Yes,
:08:08. > :08:15.squeeze the wages and baby profit for people who invest. Or are you
:08:16. > :08:20.talking about job satisfaction for people where they can build a life.
:08:21. > :08:25.I don't disagree with that per se but when we came to the responses to
:08:26. > :08:29.people, let's get government to do something about it, that seems to be
:08:30. > :08:31.the best anyone can come up with. The government has got to do
:08:32. > :08:35.something about it because the government is having to subsidise
:08:36. > :08:38.people. People are not earning enough in their wages and their
:08:39. > :08:42.take-home pay to exist in this country. The government is having to
:08:43. > :08:46.pay in terms of tax credit, universal credit. They have got to
:08:47. > :08:49.top people up. People are going to food banks in this country, people
:08:50. > :08:59.who are working, and I think that is a disgrace. If I may, Theresa May,
:09:00. > :09:05.if I may, is launching the shared society idea this week. Some people
:09:06. > :09:09.were saying that ?10 million a year, ?15 million a year, whatever, is not
:09:10. > :09:20.consummate with that. What does the audience thing? Green jumper? Quick,
:09:21. > :09:24.if you would? What is the intention of the CEO? Are they there to make
:09:25. > :09:29.long-term benefit for the society? If you look at 2008 prices, all the
:09:30. > :09:36.CEOs were there what happened after that? CEOs make profits for the
:09:37. > :09:39.shareholders. What is their intention? Are they there to make a
:09:40. > :09:45.difference for society or to get their salaries? If accompanied as
:09:46. > :09:52.well, the workers do well and society does well the
:09:53. > :09:58.counterargument. -- if the company does well. If a person is looking
:09:59. > :10:01.for a salary 300 times that of the average worker in this country,
:10:02. > :10:09.surely the only thing you can be sure that that person is that they
:10:10. > :10:13.are greedy and selfish? Is that the sort of culture you want to create
:10:14. > :10:21.within that company and within society as a whole? Yes. Wizbit? Are
:10:22. > :10:29.these people greedy and selfish? Bill Gates, he does philanthropy.
:10:30. > :10:34.Everything has got to be quantified. As Theresa May said, we need a fair
:10:35. > :10:40.society. When you look at BHS, which affected many thousands of people,
:10:41. > :10:44.by one greedy person. Nobody minds CEOs that perform well earning lots
:10:45. > :10:51.of money because obviously we need to support that creativity, but what
:10:52. > :10:55.we are speaking about is where we see blatant corruption, and we
:10:56. > :10:59.really need to fight against that. As the young lady mentioned at the
:11:00. > :11:02.front about food banks, there is social enterprise in Wednesbury and
:11:03. > :11:09.we have a food bank because our parents are so poor that they cannot
:11:10. > :11:15.afford food and local authorities cannot afford to pay for the
:11:16. > :11:21.education plans as opposed to support. We need a fair society and
:11:22. > :11:25.we need to root out corruption both in private and local authorities who
:11:26. > :11:31.don't pay for the things that people at the bottom rung of society need.
:11:32. > :11:39.Thank you for that point. Anyone else? Mick Whelan, union man, what
:11:40. > :11:44.are you stand about? We talk about family. I am not against wealth
:11:45. > :11:51.creator Jim, economic viability, contributing to GDP, people going
:11:52. > :11:56.well. -- wealth creation. But the tactic is doing well off of the
:11:57. > :11:59.employees, not off of investment. How can we manufacture additional
:12:00. > :12:05.profits by taking it away from the people we employ? It should be
:12:06. > :12:11.shared about. Don't we have a million kids between the ages of 16
:12:12. > :12:20.and 24 who are not in employment? We have the biggest growth in zero
:12:21. > :12:25.hours, typified by ASOS and Sport Direct. People are suffering from
:12:26. > :12:29.companies that make massive profits and don't recognise the contribution
:12:30. > :12:32.of the staff. The only thing that we are really debating is whether CEOs
:12:33. > :12:40.matter to the value of their firms. Hang on. Does a company that makes
:12:41. > :12:45.the right strategic decisions have an edge on its rivals? All the
:12:46. > :12:50.people with money on the line, share investors, pension funds, they all
:12:51. > :12:55.agree that when a good CEO leaves a firm, the firm becomes much less
:12:56. > :12:59.valuable. The person who ran Burberry, when she stepped down
:13:00. > :13:04.suddenly, Burberry became half ?1 billion less valuable and she was
:13:05. > :13:08.paid much less than that. Martin Sorrell is a great example. Is he
:13:09. > :13:16.worth ?70 million? I think Bob. He built WPP. -- I think more. They
:13:17. > :13:19.made shopping baskets before he came along and now it is one of the most
:13:20. > :13:23.important advertising firms. He built it from the ground up with his
:13:24. > :13:27.hands. This is a very important person. You one study like that
:13:28. > :13:35.leading your phone whether you are share holder or worker. -- leading
:13:36. > :13:39.your firm. I will come back to you. What about that situation? We are
:13:40. > :13:44.going to drop your page dramatically, Mr or Mrs CEO, and
:13:45. > :13:47.they say, OK, I will take my laptop, leave the company and go to Geneva
:13:48. > :13:54.and you lose that talent. What about that? I think it is very rare that
:13:55. > :13:58.it is a Mrs! The FTSE 100 CEOs, there are six women, which is
:13:59. > :14:02.another issue. But what if they are going elsewhere and you lose the
:14:03. > :14:06.talent? We are possessed with talent. We are calling it talent.
:14:07. > :14:09.These people are working extremely hard and they may be extremely
:14:10. > :14:15.creative and as somebody has already said, what is Martin Sorrell doing
:14:16. > :14:26.for ?77 million that he would not do for 76 million? He built the company
:14:27. > :14:28.from nothing. Great. The problem is that businesses don't exist in
:14:29. > :14:30.isolation. Whether it is WPP, any other business you care to mention,
:14:31. > :14:34.it is built on the back of the education of its workers that we are
:14:35. > :14:37.all contributing to, being built on police keeping society safe so they
:14:38. > :14:40.can keep their businesses going, it is built on the efforts of nurses
:14:41. > :14:44.and care workers and people who look after our children so we can go to
:14:45. > :14:52.work. These people are not seeing any benefit from this. Does not in
:14:53. > :14:58.isolation. Justin? Does this not set the great example in our society? I
:14:59. > :15:05.could one day be making ?70 million a year. Maybe not! As I said that...
:15:06. > :15:10.I would be confident that you would be giving it back to the people
:15:11. > :15:17.because you care more. Allegedly! Is it an aspirational thing? We are
:15:18. > :15:20.discussing inequality and voices in the audience said it didn't matter
:15:21. > :15:25.but of course it matters. We are society. There was an argument made
:15:26. > :15:29.over here that the bigger your company, the more money you can get,
:15:30. > :15:35.does that work for the NHS? Does that work for schools? Do teachers
:15:36. > :15:38.get paid more when they are teaching 30 children? Of course not. This
:15:39. > :15:42.failure to recognise that there is a contradiction between saying we are
:15:43. > :15:47.all citizens, all equal, we all get the vote, but you don't matter
:15:48. > :15:55.because you only earn ?5 a week, it is a con. If we really believe in
:15:56. > :16:02.society, we should be investing in everybody, irrespective.
:16:03. > :16:07.NHS workers and teachers know that they don't get as much, they are not
:16:08. > :16:13.working for private companies. That begs the question whether end we
:16:14. > :16:19.start from somebody come and we have not specified who, needs to stick
:16:20. > :16:25.their finger in and cut CEO papered do we also have to cut middle
:16:26. > :16:33.management pay? We are talking about the CEOs of private companies. This
:16:34. > :16:37.is a creature of the state. There is a knock-on effect on public sector,
:16:38. > :16:43.not all teachers are working for the state, many are working for private
:16:44. > :16:49.companies, with academise Asian. -- with academies. We are seeing this
:16:50. > :17:00.have an impact because then it forces up the wages in the private
:17:01. > :17:08.sector. Stefan, I have had enough from you. You don't normally save it
:17:09. > :17:12.is counterintuitive that is put to you because you might agree, we will
:17:13. > :17:23.get somebody to respond, but it looks like hay and remuneration that
:17:24. > :17:27.up. -- pay and remuneration of a company fails, what is going on
:17:28. > :17:30.there? A system that doesn't work and the latest big set of research
:17:31. > :17:38.from Lancaster University shows there is no link at all between
:17:39. > :17:42.vastly increased CEO pay packages and capital letters. You can
:17:43. > :17:50.understand if it goes well, they get a bonus. But who is doing the work?
:17:51. > :17:54.The bigger the company, the moral support the CEO has come the more
:17:55. > :17:58.senior managers there are the more divisional managers there are, there
:17:59. > :18:01.should be less credit to a CEO for running a bigger company and they
:18:02. > :18:06.don't run it on the own. They take decisions with the board and with
:18:07. > :18:09.their senior management teams. There is this superhero vision of one
:18:10. > :18:14.human being apparently changing the destiny of the corporation with tens
:18:15. > :18:20.or hundreds of thousands of people doing the work. And the middle
:18:21. > :18:27.managers are taking the decisions. It is very tell stuff. We pipe up
:18:28. > :18:30.these people and they take and demand ever bigger packages and they
:18:31. > :18:37.are getting them because there is nothing to stop them. Sony ten years
:18:38. > :18:41.ago was much bigger than Samsung, they decided to invest in
:18:42. > :18:45.smartphones and Sony didn't and that was a good idea. Samsung is a giant
:18:46. > :18:49.and stone is that Regazzoni is getting worse because of a strategic
:18:50. > :18:54.decision made by someone at the top. If I was Sony I would have wanted
:18:55. > :19:04.the right CEO who took that decision.
:19:05. > :19:09.That the numbers in perspective is that this gentleman made a good
:19:10. > :19:16.point that we have to quantify it. In an average FTSE 100 company, the
:19:17. > :19:24.average salary of the CEO is less than one 1000th of the operating
:19:25. > :19:27.costs. It is not to us and anybody watching for -- but what the company
:19:28. > :19:35.is a tiny amount to spend to get the best person for the job. If you
:19:36. > :19:39.think that Tim Cook is not with 0.001% of Apple's costs, you need to
:19:40. > :19:48.think more about what happened in the companies when they make the
:19:49. > :19:51.wrong decisions. Is it not the case that it is not so much what people
:19:52. > :19:55.get if they have a successful company and they are vibrant and
:19:56. > :20:00.energetic and dynamic, it is what people get riled about is the
:20:01. > :20:06.evasion and tax evasion and dodging. If you have somebody like Bill Gates
:20:07. > :20:10.for example with making huge amounts that is doing a lot of philanthropy
:20:11. > :20:16.and doing a lot for society, do you not celebrate somebody like him? Of
:20:17. > :20:19.course and the world would literally be a poorer place if we do not have
:20:20. > :20:23.such great philanthropists as that but these are different issues. You
:20:24. > :20:31.look at somebody like Warren Buffett comedy is concerned about inequality
:20:32. > :20:35.-- he is concerned. It is an evil is decided that there is a big gap. The
:20:36. > :20:40.business community is bothered about this. Research shows that 71% of
:20:41. > :20:46.employees are concerned about bosses pay and think it is too high at 59%
:20:47. > :20:50.are demotivated by that service is having an effect on productivity.
:20:51. > :20:57.Also on morale, if we value an average CEO at 324 times the income
:20:58. > :21:02.of a care worker, that shows that our society is putting profit before
:21:03. > :21:07.people. APPLAUSE Thank you very much. The first
:21:08. > :21:07.debate of our new series and very interesting.
:21:08. > :21:10.If you have something to say about that debate log
:21:11. > :21:12.on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions and follow the link to where you can
:21:13. > :21:19.We're also debating live this morning at Brunel University,
:21:20. > :21:22.should industrial action only target employers?
:21:23. > :21:25.And would today's wise men believe in God?
:21:26. > :21:29.So get tweeting or emailing on those topics now or send us any other
:21:30. > :21:36.ideas or thoughts you may have about the show.
:21:37. > :21:47.It's been a miserable six months for the hundreds of thousands
:21:48. > :21:49.of people who commute into London on Southern Rail,
:21:50. > :21:51.the rail franchise that serves much of Kent,
:21:52. > :21:54.They've faced cancellations, delays, over-crowded trains and all-out
:21:55. > :21:56.strikes in a dispute over whether the sliding doors should now
:21:57. > :22:00.be controlled by the drivers instead of by separate guards on the trains.
:22:01. > :22:02.On Thursday, a report from the rail regulator said that driver-only
:22:03. > :22:04.trains would be safe on Southern Trains provided certain
:22:05. > :22:08.And one of the unions agreed to talks with
:22:09. > :22:10.the Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling.
:22:11. > :22:13.As things stand, there's three more days of strikes called for next week
:22:14. > :22:22.And to make matters worse, the tube trains are on strike today
:22:23. > :22:24.and British Airways employees are all out on Tuesday
:22:25. > :22:28.It's not a good week for passengers to get anywhere on time.
:22:29. > :22:30.Should industrial action only target employers,
:22:31. > :22:41.Can we not find out a way of doing that? Give us an idea of the misery
:22:42. > :22:47.this has caused the collateral damage of this strike. There was no
:22:48. > :22:50.doubt who feels the pain on transport strike and passengers are
:22:51. > :22:54.many of whom don't have choices, they rely on these services to get
:22:55. > :22:58.to and from home and it makes their lives a misery. Southern rail,
:22:59. > :23:04.300,000 people every day use their services to get to work and back and
:23:05. > :23:07.their lives are being disrupted. It is costing businesses tens of
:23:08. > :23:13.millions of pounds of people don't know if they can get to the office
:23:14. > :23:16.at what time, to meetings, theatres, restaurants, shops, their takings
:23:17. > :23:21.are down. People don't stick around at the end of the day and of course
:23:22. > :23:24.there is a human cost. The passengers don't know what time they
:23:25. > :23:33.are getting home, can they the family meal, can they have bath time
:23:34. > :23:39.with the kids? Most passengers would say that enough is enough and get
:23:40. > :23:47.back to talks. Collateral damage is huge on this. Misery is not too
:23:48. > :23:50.strong a word. Yes. And I spent most of my life promoting the rail
:23:51. > :23:57.industry, trying to get long-term investment, and get fares down to
:23:58. > :24:02.rate where people can afford them, not 14% of their gross income. But
:24:03. > :24:09.you get to a situation, we have only just recently gone on strike, our
:24:10. > :24:12.first strikes were early in December and we halved those strikes next
:24:13. > :24:17.week in relation to consideration us. The reality is this is not a
:24:18. > :24:20.pecuniary strike, it is not about money, we're not looking for
:24:21. > :24:28.leverage or better conditions or pay, we believe that these 12 yard
:24:29. > :24:36.trains are unsafe. We are campaigning for safety. Short-term
:24:37. > :24:39.pain and long-term gain? We hope so. We're not doing this for ourselves,
:24:40. > :24:44.this is not the normal sort of dispute in relation to a poor pay
:24:45. > :24:51.offer. The regulator said it would be safe with certain conditions. The
:24:52. > :24:54.evidence to the transport select committee and the report last week
:24:55. > :24:59.they said that it can be safe and went on to highlight issues we said
:25:00. > :25:02.were unsafe and did not give an improvement. Cleaning the mirrors
:25:03. > :25:07.was one of them. If you can't see the people on the platform and you
:25:08. > :25:14.can't do the platform train interface, it is inherently unsafe.
:25:15. > :25:17.Passengers always see the he said, she said of the unions and employers
:25:18. > :25:21.and this is where we have to like an expert evidence from trusted
:25:22. > :25:27.independent third parties and that is what we had last week, the
:25:28. > :25:29.regulator, Her Majesty's inspect of railway, an independent person
:25:30. > :25:34.saying this is a safe way of working. -- inspector. They made
:25:35. > :25:37.some recommendations and make's members were involved. They
:25:38. > :25:41.identified some improvements that could be made, whether it is cutting
:25:42. > :25:47.away foliage, improving lighting and in some instances where there is not
:25:48. > :25:50.good visibility, having extra staff in the station. For the most part
:25:51. > :25:54.this is a safe way of working there are things that could be done to
:25:55. > :25:59.make it safer but instead of a wholesale disruption, work with the
:26:00. > :26:04.employer. The idea that this wholesale disruption has come from a
:26:05. > :26:09.strikes if nonsense. At Stratton Station for years, because of
:26:10. > :26:12.Strathern -- Southern rail's incompetence from the station has
:26:13. > :26:18.been run into the ground. We are suffering as passengers. It has been
:26:19. > :26:22.bad and it is getting worse. My son is a wheelchair user and he cannot
:26:23. > :26:25.use the railways without help. Southern rail are proposing to take
:26:26. > :26:29.that away, we were to plan journeys much more in advance. This should be
:26:30. > :26:33.a public transport system that works and is fit for purpose and serves
:26:34. > :26:42.everybody but he will not be able to use it and of other disabled people
:26:43. > :26:48.will not be able to. A lot of people don't realise that Southern rail is
:26:49. > :26:52.basically nationalised. In 2015 it was taken into public hands, they
:26:53. > :26:59.kept the brand but the Department for Transport decide on pay and
:27:00. > :27:06.conditions. That's not true. I'm happy to show... They formed the
:27:07. > :27:11.core GTR and put south-eastern, Southern, great Northern together.
:27:12. > :27:15.What they did to force this group was given a contract where all the
:27:16. > :27:18.revenue goes to the government and the government bears the costs, it
:27:19. > :27:26.is still privatised... And the government decides pay... Let him
:27:27. > :27:30.finish his point. The government decides conditions of this is no
:27:31. > :27:37.more privatised than London buses. That thing in Dia Chakravarty. What
:27:38. > :27:43.kind of disputes can we have going ahead that will change things and
:27:44. > :27:48.give better conditions for workers? And if there is a proper grievance,
:27:49. > :27:51.to address them and redress them, without members of the general
:27:52. > :27:56.public suffering as much as they have been doing and as much as they
:27:57. > :28:00.will be doing with other disputes in the coming weeks? That is where the
:28:01. > :28:07.debate should be. If the unions are telling us that there is a pay
:28:08. > :28:11.issue, a work commission issue, people would be more willing to
:28:12. > :28:15.listen. All we hear from the outside, as we just heard from the
:28:16. > :28:18.unions saying this is a safety issue where we do have independent experts
:28:19. > :28:24.saying it is not. You mentioned the report from last week, we have seen
:28:25. > :28:28.requests from the London Evening Standard which also came out last
:28:29. > :28:33.week saying that the number of incidents, serious incidents, in
:28:34. > :28:38.driver only trains had been coming down massively. We don't really see
:28:39. > :28:43.a safety issue but we keep hearing from the unions that there is one.
:28:44. > :28:50.It seems to us like there is a lack of transparency and honesty on the
:28:51. > :28:53.unions part. That makes it very difficult for us to understand why
:28:54. > :29:00.this is going on and we are the ones being held hostage. We need unions
:29:01. > :29:02.in society. Absolutely, they have an important in protecting workers'
:29:03. > :29:07.rights but with that comes great responsibility. To what extent can
:29:08. > :29:14.they hold us hostage and if they do, they have to be honest about it.
:29:15. > :29:19.Just a second, please. If they do think that conditions are not good
:29:20. > :29:25.enough and to strike, they have to ask if they are just about to go to
:29:26. > :29:30.strike. It is an issue of trust. My dad was a doctor, he went into the
:29:31. > :29:33.NHS as a vocation, we get to the point where we see junior doctors
:29:34. > :29:36.concerned about the NHS being on its knees and now we see that it is, we
:29:37. > :29:41.should have listened to them. We should listen to the teachers...
:29:42. > :29:45.APPLAUSE We should listen to the train
:29:46. > :29:47.drivers that are safety issues because we don't listen to the
:29:48. > :29:52.people who are at the metaphorical coalface who are dealing with
:29:53. > :29:58.reality. Listen to the people doing the job. Why do you think the
:29:59. > :30:00.experts are constantly lying? I think Michael Gove make an
:30:01. > :30:06.interesting point about not believing experts. We would have an
:30:07. > :30:11.empty front row if we do not have expert! There is a clear public mood
:30:12. > :30:14.when we think a government policy of divide and rule, dividing passengers
:30:15. > :30:17.against Uni and when the real villains in this other government
:30:18. > :30:23.and why not intervening and could sort this out -- against unions. If
:30:24. > :30:29.they listen, we could sort this. Organisations like us would say OK,
:30:30. > :30:32.if government is the source of all evil, open it up and take it out of
:30:33. > :30:38.their hands and let there be more competition, more deregulation. Who
:30:39. > :30:45.does Southern rail compete against? This is nonsense. So why don't we
:30:46. > :30:49.open up? Don't have the ?1.2 billion sucked out by the prophets and
:30:50. > :30:56.invest it in a decent and proper train service -- profits.
:30:57. > :31:11.Excuse me! Let's hear from the people. Sorry! In the glasses?
:31:12. > :31:15.Having doors that are just operated by drivers, we have been doing that
:31:16. > :31:21.in the London Underground for 40 years, and it works. On the
:31:22. > :31:25.platforms we have got people who are there who will allow trains to go on
:31:26. > :31:32.and off. The list can be done safely and we have got CCTV. There is so
:31:33. > :31:35.much technology around it. Other unions using this as an excuse
:31:36. > :31:40.because they are worried that train guards will be a job that is
:31:41. > :31:44.removed? I am not quite sure what the unions are gaining on this. I
:31:45. > :31:53.think the lack of transparency doesn't match up with what is being
:31:54. > :31:57.said. The moral heart of this is the collateral damage, if you want to
:31:58. > :32:01.use that phrase. Customers, travellers, members of the general
:32:02. > :32:06.public. We heard about misery and that is what we are discussing here
:32:07. > :32:10.really. How can that be avoided? I don't think it can be avoided in the
:32:11. > :32:17.short term for a long-term game, as you said before. If I'm travelling
:32:18. > :32:20.on the train, I know this gentleman spoke about having no guards, but I
:32:21. > :32:27.was on the DLR last week and there was a guard opening and shutting the
:32:28. > :32:32.doors. We say that isn't true that in some cases it certainly is. It is
:32:33. > :32:36.the right of a worker to withdraw their labour if they feel that
:32:37. > :32:40.safety is a crucial issue. Personally I would feel that the
:32:41. > :32:43.person who is driving the train or the person involved in the flights
:32:44. > :32:48.with British Airways, whatever that dispute is, they are on the front
:32:49. > :32:57.line, so I believed then more than an employer who may have a vested
:32:58. > :33:02.interest. The flight crew lay is astonishingly low. Some people would
:33:03. > :33:10.be surprised at how little it is. It is something like basic pay,
:33:11. > :33:18.?16,000. Yes? I think there should be an honest debate. We are trying!
:33:19. > :33:23.Normally in these instances, you usually get experts, but experts are
:33:24. > :33:32.not the users. We should hear from the users themselves. He has got the
:33:33. > :33:36.son who has a wheelchair. We should take on board more his opinion
:33:37. > :33:40.rather than listening to the so-called experts. You are user,
:33:41. > :33:49.aren't you? How has your using been recently? Misery is a nice way of
:33:50. > :33:53.putting it. I have been used as a football. My staff, my candidates,
:33:54. > :33:58.my clients, they are having trouble getting to and from work. Sit down
:33:59. > :34:02.at the table and negotiate, don't use us as the football. Yes, there
:34:03. > :34:06.are issues that need to be sorted out but you don't need to strike and
:34:07. > :34:11.you don't need to make someone's income impossible because of the
:34:12. > :34:15.strike. And family life? It is putting a real strain on people that
:34:16. > :34:20.use Southern Trains so it would be nice to see them back at the table
:34:21. > :34:24.and they are blaming each other for not doing that. This is something
:34:25. > :34:29.they do in France with transport strikes. They turn up to work and do
:34:30. > :34:34.their work for no pay, but they open the turnstiles and they let people
:34:35. > :34:40.travel for free. So the company suffers but the general public
:34:41. > :34:45.don't. Little idea for you. Nice idea. Great idea. Part of the
:34:46. > :34:48.problem here is that the very thing we are talking about, for the last
:34:49. > :34:52.nine months they would rather have us in the High Court four times than
:34:53. > :34:55.sitting round the table. It is only now that we have a strike that
:34:56. > :35:00.people say they want to talk to us and they have gone to ACAS. We have
:35:01. > :35:08.been willing to talk throughout. What the strategy of the company and
:35:09. > :35:12.the government is a fait accompli, they will do what they want until it
:35:13. > :35:16.is too late for you to do anything about it. The reality is that
:35:17. > :35:20.Britain is not a great place to be. Sexual assault has gone up on the
:35:21. > :35:24.railways over the last 12 months. Drivers when travel on were well
:35:25. > :35:31.trained at certain times of night because it is not safe. -- private
:35:32. > :35:35.way to travel on certain trains. But what about the conductors? Well
:35:36. > :35:38.where are they? The people they promised not there now. Has there
:35:39. > :35:43.been an industrial dispute in this country that you have not supported?
:35:44. > :35:48.Yes but that is personal and I will keep it to myself. It was just
:35:49. > :35:53.getting interesting! We all have value judgments we make about why
:35:54. > :35:57.people do certain things. In relation to this dispute, this is
:35:58. > :36:01.about a safety issue that we feel incredibly strongly about, and it is
:36:02. > :36:04.driven by the 18,000 people that drive these trains every day. Trust
:36:05. > :36:10.the people that work on the trains because they know more about it than
:36:11. > :36:16.you do. My simple question. Why not trust the unions can tell us. What
:36:17. > :36:20.are people meant to see when you look at the requests and apparently
:36:21. > :36:24.these departments are responding truthfully. If not the unions should
:36:25. > :36:29.probably take them to court. It is very confusing for people sitting
:36:30. > :36:32.outside. One of the offence we keep hearing about his ticket office is
:36:33. > :36:37.getting shut down. That has nothing to do with safety, come on, you have
:36:38. > :36:41.got to agree to that as well. It is just about keeping jobs. There are
:36:42. > :36:45.minimum staffing requirement on stations after the King's Cross
:36:46. > :36:48.fire. If they are not in place, and ticket offices are not open at
:36:49. > :36:56.certain stations, they aren't safe but I'm not involved in that. Has
:36:57. > :37:01.the role of union changed in your society and will it change in the
:37:02. > :37:04.future? It is important but it is interesting to note that the average
:37:05. > :37:08.union member is a woman, over 50 and works in the public sector, not the
:37:09. > :37:11.private sector. We are increasingly seeing that private sector workers
:37:12. > :37:14.are deciding not to join unions and I think that is all the worse
:37:15. > :37:21.because unions do much more than just striking. What should the
:37:22. > :37:23.union's main role be? They can give union support to workers, let you
:37:24. > :37:27.know if they are being taken advantage of, and advice bureau.
:37:28. > :37:35.There is an important role there. Let me finish. A huge percentage of
:37:36. > :37:39.the public believe trade unions are good thing. OK, but they are not
:37:40. > :37:42.doing that with their feet. Unions take a combative approach, that is
:37:43. > :37:47.the real danger, they strike a lot, which drives up the cost of having
:37:48. > :37:50.them, and they will be replaced. Where we have got driverless trains,
:37:51. > :37:55.there may not be any drivers in ten years' time to strike. The more
:37:56. > :38:00.difficult they make it to work with them now, the quicker the axe falls.
:38:01. > :38:06.He isn't difficult. He is a pussycat. The lady right behind you
:38:07. > :38:11.wanted to say something. Nick is exasperated. With the safety and
:38:12. > :38:15.that you have got to take on board all aspects of that, but isn't
:38:16. > :38:20.striking making the recovery harder? With a taxpayers and the people
:38:21. > :38:23.paying for tickets, the people who support the railways, for people not
:38:24. > :38:27.to get to jobs, to lose their income, surely there is another way
:38:28. > :38:34.around it? Revenue strikes or something. Seppi tackles the
:38:35. > :38:39.employers rather than customers. -- soak it tackles the employers rather
:38:40. > :38:42.than customers. This is the moral question. It's sometimes said that
:38:43. > :38:49.management gets the unions they deserve and there has been horrible
:38:50. > :38:52.mismanagement in the railways. It shows how difficult it is to take
:38:53. > :38:57.legal industrial action in this country. If you go on other railways
:38:58. > :39:02.in this country you get contented railway forces and they are proud of
:39:03. > :39:05.the railway on which they work. I always speak to people about their
:39:06. > :39:09.jobs and that is very much the case but you cannot say that about this
:39:10. > :39:12.company at the moment. It is a public service and people are not
:39:13. > :39:15.paid a lot of money. They go into it because they want to do that but
:39:16. > :39:18.they have got to be in an environment where they can do their
:39:19. > :39:21.job safely. We have got to find a way out. Striking like this is a
:39:22. > :39:34.nuclear option with massive impact and all sites need to find a way
:39:35. > :39:36.back from the brink. This is having a devastating impact on hundreds of
:39:37. > :39:38.thousands of people. The safety case doesn't sound... Independent voters
:39:39. > :39:43.have looked at this and said it isn't unsafe. Doubtless it could be
:39:44. > :39:46.safer. Nick and his members have not been on strike. I really would urge
:39:47. > :39:53.you to go the extra mile and find a way of going back to the table and
:39:54. > :39:57.calling a halt. We have try to find a way through this 24 hours a day
:39:58. > :40:01.and there has been an unwillingness. This was driven by the DFT 12 months
:40:02. > :40:04.ago and they openly said this would be the consequence of what they
:40:05. > :40:07.wanted to do and they would rip up the contract of the drivers but
:40:08. > :40:11.spectacularly the media don't report that. The media are not showing all
:40:12. > :40:14.the evidence we produce on what the driver can and more importantly
:40:15. > :40:20.cannot see. Nobody wants to go on strike. It is the last option of any
:40:21. > :40:22.trade union. My members don't want to be losing money prior to
:40:23. > :40:32.Christmas and post-Christmas and they have the same pressure on them
:40:33. > :40:35.as everyone else. They don't want people to be massive fares and we
:40:36. > :40:39.empathise with the travelling public. They are the people we want
:40:40. > :40:42.to help most and we don't want to alienate them. Tell us about the
:40:43. > :40:46.abuse they are getting. Naturally when people can't get to work
:40:47. > :40:50.because trains are delayed, it is only highlighted by this dispute how
:40:51. > :40:53.poorly the staff suffer. They couldn't run 25% of their services
:40:54. > :40:58.without the goodwill and overtime of drivers, which tells us they have a
:40:59. > :41:05.dearth of resources anyway, which is why the service was and is so bad.
:41:06. > :41:12.Should there be a moral limits on what you impose on the consumer, the
:41:13. > :41:16.customer, and travel? Should there be a line beyond which you should
:41:17. > :41:19.not go? These are hard-won rights and we have seen improvement over
:41:20. > :41:24.the decades because of strong unions and the right to strike. If you take
:41:25. > :41:34.that away, we risk going back. There are less unionisation in the private
:41:35. > :41:37.sector because employers are clamping down on employees. We need
:41:38. > :41:39.workers to be listened to and we need them to have control because
:41:40. > :41:43.that will make the workplace a better place. Thank you.
:41:44. > :41:46.If you have something to say about that debate log on
:41:47. > :41:49.to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions and follow the link to where you can
:41:50. > :41:58.Tell us what you think about our last big question too.
:41:59. > :41:59.Would today's wise men believe in God?
:42:00. > :42:01.Next week we're back here at Brunel University
:42:02. > :42:04.for a special edition asking just one big question - is digital
:42:05. > :42:09.And if you'd like to apply to be in the audience at a future show you
:42:10. > :42:20.We're in Bradford on January 22nd, Glasgow on the 29th
:42:21. > :42:26.Friday was Epiphany, the day the three wise men finally
:42:27. > :42:28.found the baby Jesus, God in human form,
:42:29. > :42:32.after following the star in the East.
:42:33. > :42:33.They were Magi, revered and respected Babylonian astronomers
:42:34. > :42:39.and astrologers who studied the movements of the stars
:42:40. > :42:42.and the planets looking for signs and portents of important events -
:42:43. > :42:45.so rather like ancient versions of Professor Brian Cox,
:42:46. > :42:47.except they believed in magic, miraculous events and in God.
:42:48. > :42:55.Would today's wise men believe in God?
:42:56. > :43:06.Brian does not believe in any of the above. Doctor Vince Vitale, author
:43:07. > :43:09.of Jesus Among Secular Gods. Here is a thing, the more educated you are,
:43:10. > :43:15.the less likely you are to believe in God. Why? On this question I
:43:16. > :43:21.would have answered no. Why is that? Why is that the case? Why is it the
:43:22. > :43:24.case that the more educated you are in the less likely you are to
:43:25. > :43:28.believe in God? There are many reasons for that and it depends
:43:29. > :43:34.where you are looking. It is not the case in most places in world and in
:43:35. > :43:37.most times throughout history. A new survey in 2013. Most of the highly
:43:38. > :43:44.educated people around the world believe in God because most people
:43:45. > :43:49.do believe in God. I was studying philosophy in Princeton and I
:43:50. > :43:51.thought they've had to be blind and rational, and I thought irrational
:43:52. > :43:55.faith was a contradiction in terms and I were surprised when I first
:43:56. > :43:58.began to look into this and I first opened the Bible and I saw it
:43:59. > :44:05.talking about debating, like this show, and reasoning, and the word
:44:06. > :44:08.persuasion is most used when suddenly makes the decision to
:44:09. > :44:15.become a Christian. I like that you chose the word wise for this show.
:44:16. > :44:19.When you have a conversation with someone and you think that person is
:44:20. > :44:24.wise, what are you talking about? You are not just talking about who
:44:25. > :44:27.is most educated. Somebody might be very intelligent. When you are
:44:28. > :44:30.asking about wisdom, you are asking about direction for life and if you
:44:31. > :44:36.want directed by life you need answers to some fundamental
:44:37. > :44:39.questions of life, origin, meaning, morality and destiny. That comes
:44:40. > :44:49.from metaphor and interpretation. If somebody said to you that I believe
:44:50. > :44:52.literally in Adam and Eve and I believe the earth is less than
:44:53. > :44:54.10,000 years old and I just saw an angel, would you say they were wise?
:44:55. > :44:56.Let me start with a starting point. Origin meaning morality and destiny.
:44:57. > :45:03.We have got to answer those questions before we get to that.
:45:04. > :45:10.Those are the fundamental question that everyone has got to answer
:45:11. > :45:21.them. It is easy to poke holes in certain forms of literalism, but
:45:22. > :45:24.criticism has an empty alternative. Where do we come from? Is there a
:45:25. > :45:28.meaning in life? Is their purpose and where are we headed? If you
:45:29. > :45:30.answer that you can live with wisdom and pass it onto others. That the
:45:31. > :45:43.point for each of us. Interesting. Interesting thought if
:45:44. > :45:48.I may say so. But if the between the more educated you are, the less
:45:49. > :45:52.likely you are to believe in God? Vince makes a nice point about the
:45:53. > :45:57.word wise but maybe the most natural way to interpret wisdom is referring
:45:58. > :46:04.to intelligence and rationality... Curiosity. We don't know what the
:46:05. > :46:09.village between intelligence was an belief in God was 2000 years ago but
:46:10. > :46:14.today's wife men and women are less likely to believe in God. There is a
:46:15. > :46:20.lot of literature on this. Why is that? A number of reasons, one
:46:21. > :46:24.possibility is that people who are more intelligent art is likely to
:46:25. > :46:29.conform, we don't live in a cultural vacuum and a lot of our beliefs are
:46:30. > :46:31.influenced by the provided link culture around us and another for
:46:32. > :46:40.civility is highly intelligent people are more inclined to be
:46:41. > :46:46.analytical and not go with their gut a number of reasons. They might be
:46:47. > :46:51.turned off by Liz Watson. It says in the Koran and the vital that you
:46:52. > :47:02.should go out and seek knowledge -- literalism. There is a lot of
:47:03. > :47:05.resistance two sides. That is true. -- persistence to science.
:47:06. > :47:18.That will always be an obstacle. It is also to believe in God can take a
:47:19. > :47:21.certain amount of intellectual unity because you are agreeing that there
:47:22. > :47:27.is being fat is lot smarter than you and that will narrow the conclusion
:47:28. > :47:31.that you control -- fact is a lot smarter. Meacher
:47:32. > :47:44.that if the -- Meacher said that if there was a god, how could I then
:47:45. > :47:47.not to be one. -- Nietsche. Russell, you understand astrology and
:47:48. > :47:50.particle physics and obviously evolution but if somebody said that
:47:51. > :47:54.they believe in angels, would you think they were wise? I would think
:47:55. > :48:02.I would have to ask them why they believed in it,... It is in the
:48:03. > :48:07.Bible. And personally I do believe in angels but in an certain context.
:48:08. > :48:13.I was brought up in an environment of nominal churchgoing but had never
:48:14. > :48:17.really experienced the narratives about Jesus as a person and it was
:48:18. > :48:21.at the age of 18 when I was beginning my first degree in physics
:48:22. > :48:25.that I read some of the eyewitness account of the life of Jesus and I
:48:26. > :48:30.was amazed at the things that were there and the authority I have ever
:48:31. > :48:33.heard of before. For the last 27th years I have been living this
:48:34. > :48:37.tension Anne Haug on on the one hand I can be faithful to this person,
:48:38. > :48:44.Jesus, but on the other hand be a fully fledged academic physicist --
:48:45. > :48:51.about how. It is a wonderful tension to be able to study the physical
:48:52. > :49:01.mechanisms of the universe... What is a particle physicist's take on
:49:02. > :49:06.angels? You believe in them. As a Christian, we look to Jesus as the
:49:07. > :49:12.primary source of information about God. I am sure Ryan will be talked
:49:13. > :49:15.about the fact that our brains are predisposed to want to make up
:49:16. > :49:21.stories and so there are a lot of stories about fairies and angels.
:49:22. > :49:24.What is the difference between them? Mythological creatures that have no
:49:25. > :49:31.statement in fact. I think we have to be careful. As the psychologists
:49:32. > :49:35.and evolutionary people will tell us, we are proud -- predisposed to
:49:36. > :49:38.make up stories so we have to investigate and look for authorities
:49:39. > :49:43.and to see who actually knows about spiritual things and test them. Just
:49:44. > :49:48.like good scientists as to test things and separate the myths and
:49:49. > :49:55.the stories from the underlying realities. Justin. I think the idea
:49:56. > :50:00.of testing biblical statements, you mentioned eyewitness in the Gospels,
:50:01. > :50:05.around the Nativity the Gospels or contradict and fill in gaps. If we
:50:06. > :50:11.go to that with serious criticism, we discovered it is a random series
:50:12. > :50:15.of stories. Stories are useful for making people do things but the
:50:16. > :50:21.notion that we have a Nativity today with the stable and the oxen and the
:50:22. > :50:27.three wise men confected in the middle ages. They start painting
:50:28. > :50:33.pictures of boxes and God knows what else. It is a fantasy. There is no
:50:34. > :50:37.reason to think there were three, it is an example of the fact that when
:50:38. > :50:41.we don't take these texts seriously enough, we assume there were three
:50:42. > :50:49.wise men and then maybe we can quickly to the conclusion... People
:50:50. > :50:57.who came to adore this strange offspring of a virgin... Russell and
:50:58. > :51:01.Vince make some interesting points I thought about a deeper level of
:51:02. > :51:08.understanding of the greater truths. I sense from both of them that they
:51:09. > :51:12.were uncomfortable with literalism of people saying that that happened,
:51:13. > :51:17.the Earth is 6000 years old and all that, but let me put that to you, it
:51:18. > :51:21.can put a lot of people off religion because they hit it and they think,
:51:22. > :51:30.come on. The Bible to me is a very rich text but in different genres
:51:31. > :51:32.and some art historical and some are poetic and some are creation
:51:33. > :51:36.narratives and we have to look at each one in a deep way and say, what
:51:37. > :51:42.was the intention of the author in the first place? But we might get as
:51:43. > :51:48.much out of reading Lucretius and Cicero all engaged with the fact...
:51:49. > :51:52.Whether we would get as much out of them... Some of the creation myths
:51:53. > :51:56.of religion are fascinating. And if we get as much out of them depends
:51:57. > :52:07.on the truth question, whether or not this true. I beg your pardon,
:52:08. > :52:19.the gentleman there. By any historical standards, the texts
:52:20. > :52:25.don't fit. The contradict one another and by and scientific
:52:26. > :52:31.standard, you are looking at miracles as evidence for God, these
:52:32. > :52:36.don't stand up either. If we are saying, should a wise man, whether
:52:37. > :52:42.that be an academic or other scientists, should they believe in
:52:43. > :52:48.God today, you have to almost suspend your critical faculties to
:52:49. > :52:55.do so. Do you do that? You are a distinguished physicist, are their
:52:56. > :52:59.two Russells? Definitely not and did I became a Christian I have thought
:53:00. > :53:04.more about philosophy and meaning and truth, the sort of things that
:53:05. > :53:07.are the bread and butter of philosophers but actually which
:53:08. > :53:11.scientists don't often think about. For me, becoming a follower of Jesus
:53:12. > :53:17.has pushed me towards deeper thinking and a deeper analysis of
:53:18. > :53:23.all aspects. I know a lot of academics and physicist who are
:53:24. > :53:33.religious but also accept science are very excited by the subatomic
:53:34. > :53:37.world. Do you think God is there? We call this God of the gaps, when we
:53:38. > :53:41.try to look for God and the part of science we are not clear about. And
:53:42. > :53:45.when we understand that he has to move to another gap. I would say
:53:46. > :53:49.that God is the primary cause of all the things a primary explanation --
:53:50. > :53:56.parallel explanation. What an interesting phrase. Spinoza was the
:53:57. > :54:00.first man, he was the biblical critic and understood the old
:54:01. > :54:03.Testament and the new Testament and heated the big failure of modern
:54:04. > :54:08.religion is to try to derive science from a text that is essentially
:54:09. > :54:16.nonscientific. I would never try to do that. So how do we meld the
:54:17. > :54:22.scientific and the religious world? But you don't try to do that? You
:54:23. > :54:27.talk about nonoverlapping magisterial. That is a term that can
:54:28. > :54:33.be helpful but there is a bit of overlap as much as what scientists
:54:34. > :54:36.today and what people of 2000 years ago have in common is that we want
:54:37. > :54:41.to understand the world in its entirety. We are curious people who
:54:42. > :54:45.want to know what it means to be human in the universe and part of
:54:46. > :54:48.the answer to that question comes by understanding the physical world
:54:49. > :54:53.around us, the mechanisms, but part of it wants to know who made this.
:54:54. > :54:58.Who are the authorities? Who would we want to look to for ultimate
:54:59. > :55:02.explanations? To only take half of that question and only look at the
:55:03. > :55:06.physical mechanisms and not the wider question I think is to miss
:55:07. > :55:12.out on half of life. You wanted to say something? Looking at the little
:55:13. > :55:16.question, we have to say, what has been the impact of literalism. It is
:55:17. > :55:22.a relatively recent phenomenon in this country. Yes but we are lucky
:55:23. > :55:26.that we are in the age that we are and we can have this debate.
:55:27. > :55:30.Beforehand, the framework of the whole society was religion and if
:55:31. > :55:36.you dissented, you paid the price. Talking about angels, we also had to
:55:37. > :55:42.talk about the demon and -- demons and the devil. Over 50,000 people
:55:43. > :55:53.were executed, many women, not always, 26% were men, but they were
:55:54. > :56:00.executed because of Exodus 22-18, thou shalt not suffer a witch to
:56:01. > :56:05.live. An eccentric person, people pointed the finger at you. Devils,
:56:06. > :56:10.demons? Come on! I think we have to be specific. Jesus is the one I
:56:11. > :56:15.would look to who knows about these things and there are times he talked
:56:16. > :56:20.about these things and times he dismissed them as superstition so it
:56:21. > :56:26.is a case-by-case basis. That is terrible what you cited, but no
:56:27. > :56:30.world view would want to be judged based on the worst things that have
:56:31. > :56:38.been done in its name. And we have to look back to the founder of
:56:39. > :56:44.religion, to Jesus who said to love your enemies and pray for those who
:56:45. > :56:50.persecute you. And do and others as you would have them do to you. We
:56:51. > :56:57.take that for granted. If that something perhaps predated religion?
:56:58. > :57:02.It is not. I think it is, I think we have a deeply ingrained sense of
:57:03. > :57:06.fairness. In very young children, coming back to our first debate,
:57:07. > :57:10.they be strongly to unequal distributions of things like
:57:11. > :57:15.stickers for instance. There is a psychological cost that we pay when
:57:16. > :57:20.we witness unfairness. This vaunted question of the relation between
:57:21. > :57:27.religion and morality, Wanda's point, a psychologist, Paul Bloom,
:57:28. > :57:32.has satirised this idea, I see your style and I raised you the Crusades.
:57:33. > :57:36.The idea that you take historical examples... Stalinism was very much
:57:37. > :57:56.a quasi-religious system. The gentleman with the beard. I feel
:57:57. > :58:00.like the wise men of modern times probably wouldn't believe in God
:58:01. > :58:04.because there is like a taboo about it. You get an umbrella term with
:58:05. > :58:08.Christians, if you believe in God you believe in angels and a man put
:58:09. > :58:15.all these animals on an arc. It becomes a ridiculous thing. But I
:58:16. > :58:20.think you really should. Science can give you the how but they cannot
:58:21. > :58:35.give you the wide. If you're a broader knowledge of something the Y
:58:36. > :58:39.-- the why. Is there a why? No. That is all we have got time for!
:58:40. > :58:41.As always, the debates will continue online and on Twitter.
:58:42. > :58:48.Next week we're back here at Brunel for that special debate