0:00:05 > 0:00:07Today on The Big Questions:
0:00:07 > 0:00:08Sexual equality.
0:00:08 > 0:00:11Do women hold themselves back?
0:00:11 > 0:00:18And the problems posed by evidence for religions.
0:00:28 > 0:00:30Good morning.
0:00:30 > 0:00:36I'm Nicky Campbell.
0:00:36 > 0:00:38Welcome to The Big Questions.
0:00:38 > 0:00:40Today we're live from Oasis Academy Lord's Hill in Southampton.
0:00:40 > 0:00:46Welcome, everybody, to The Big Questions.
0:00:46 > 0:00:49It's not just at the BBC that the relative
0:00:49 > 0:00:53status and pay of women has been a hot topic in recent weeks.
0:00:53 > 0:00:56At Davos, that gathering of the world's rich and powerful
0:00:56 > 0:01:01elite, only a fifth of the attendees were female.
0:01:01 > 0:01:04Mentoring schemes and ways to stop women being talked over at meetings
0:01:04 > 0:01:06or seeing their contributions ignored or stolen by
0:01:06 > 0:01:07men were discussed.
0:01:07 > 0:01:15But there's nothing new there.
0:01:15 > 0:01:16And last Sunday, at the Grammy Awards,
0:01:16 > 0:01:18only 17 out of 86 awards went to women.
0:01:18 > 0:01:21The Grammys' male president caused a furore when he said women had
0:01:21 > 0:01:24to step up if they wanted more success in the music industry.
0:01:24 > 0:01:30Are women holding themselves back?
0:01:30 > 0:01:33Doctor Catherine Hakim, welcome. Key issues in women's work. We are going
0:01:33 > 0:01:40to address the
0:01:40 > 0:01:42to address the whole #metoo business, campaign that everybody is
0:01:42 > 0:01:48celebrating at the moment. It is
0:01:51 > 0:01:53celebrating at the moment. It is a campaign, and you say that women can
0:01:53 > 0:01:57hold themselves back. What are the key ways in which women are holding
0:01:57 > 0:02:00themselves back?The key thing is that women don't ask and that has
0:02:00 > 0:02:04been shown in study after study. Women fail to ask for promotion,
0:02:04 > 0:02:09failed to put themselves forward for promotion, fail to ask for pay
0:02:09 > 0:02:13rises, and don't negotiate in the way that men do. Studies showing
0:02:13 > 0:02:17that men and women who graduate from the same law school, they end up
0:02:17 > 0:02:21with very different salaries in their very first job, and that is
0:02:21 > 0:02:24because young man right out of law school did negotiate better salaries
0:02:24 > 0:02:28and the women just said thank you to whatever was offered. That is what
0:02:28 > 0:02:34is happening throughout our careers. Those women who are determined,
0:02:34 > 0:02:39careerist,
0:02:39 > 0:02:41careerist, committed to a lifetime career, there is no problem for
0:02:41 > 0:02:43them. Look at Helen Morrissey, CEO of Newton asset management for
0:02:43 > 0:02:48decades. One of the top earning women in the country. But on the
0:02:48 > 0:02:53other hand, there is the case that even today, women who are achieving
0:02:53 > 0:02:59in their particular occupation or career are still judged more harshly
0:02:59 > 0:03:08than men and the absolutely classic example of that is the Vice
0:03:08 > 0:03:11Chancellor of Bath university. She doubled and tripled the size of the
0:03:11 > 0:03:14university in terms of student numbers and income and turnover, and
0:03:14 > 0:03:20she was there for 15 years, and yet she was criticised for having a
0:03:20 > 0:03:23remuneration package that recognised her achievement is.If she had been
0:03:23 > 0:03:27a man that would never have happened.That would never have
0:03:27 > 0:03:31happened to a man. When men achieve, they are not criticised. When women
0:03:31 > 0:03:37achieve, they are subjected to a degree of scrutiny and criticism and
0:03:37 > 0:03:43fault finding that is completely unreasonable and unfair.Who's fault
0:03:43 > 0:03:50is that, Professor Emma Rees?I think it is the fault of larger
0:03:50 > 0:03:53social structures. The workplace is a microcosm of society more broadly.
0:03:53 > 0:03:57I do agree with one point that Catherine made.Just the one
0:03:57 > 0:04:02question
0:04:03 > 0:04:08question I -- just the one?Just the one. The individual can only exist
0:04:08 > 0:04:11within social structures. If we are conditioning girls and boys from
0:04:11 > 0:04:15very young ages into certain modes of behaviour as being appropriate,
0:04:15 > 0:04:19certain occupations as being potentially ones that they can
0:04:19 > 0:04:23enter, then we are sending out a very powerful message that becomes
0:04:23 > 0:04:28absorbed to the point where it appears almost natural. But actually
0:04:28 > 0:04:32those gendered qualities, the kind of language we use about men and
0:04:32 > 0:04:37women in the workplace, he is assertive, she is bossy, for
0:04:37 > 0:04:40example.He is ambitious and she is ruthlessly ambitious?Exactly that
0:04:40 > 0:04:47kind of thing. Those are not about innate qualities. It is about how we
0:04:47 > 0:04:52regard from a very early age what we think boys and girls are capable of.
0:04:52 > 0:04:57If you say to a young girl what do you want to be when you grow up? She
0:04:57 > 0:05:01is unlikely to say astronaut, firefighter, police officer, because
0:05:01 > 0:05:05she has been conditioned into believing that some occupations
0:05:05 > 0:05:14simply will not be for her.Who is doing the conditioning? As the
0:05:14 > 0:05:21French recognising, the word socialised is a result of mothers.
0:05:21 > 0:05:24Mothers are systematically treating girl babies that boy babies
0:05:24 > 0:05:27differently. It has been shown in research, even women who are trying
0:05:27 > 0:05:32really hard to treat them the same and give them exactly the same
0:05:32 > 0:05:35upbringing, we have found that mothers treat their boys
0:05:35 > 0:05:40differently.Mothers are complicit in this?Mothers are the culprits.
0:05:40 > 0:05:44You are complicit in this debate because of your language. You said
0:05:44 > 0:05:48that women fail in the workplace to ask for promotion and they fail to
0:05:48 > 0:05:51ask for more money. Are you not complicit in your very use of
0:05:51 > 0:06:03language itself? It sounds like victim blaming to me.That is the
0:06:03 > 0:06:06easy reaction to research evidence that women do not put themselves
0:06:06 > 0:06:09forward for promotion. In the civil service they actually had a scheme
0:06:09 > 0:06:16to encourage women to put themselves forward for a promotion each time a
0:06:16 > 0:06:18competition was announced.Why don't they put themselves forward for
0:06:18 > 0:06:24promotion?The main reason is that actually we talk about women as if
0:06:24 > 0:06:29they are rolled the same and homogenous. But actually there are
0:06:29 > 0:06:34three very different groups in the workforce. There are careerist women
0:06:34 > 0:06:39who are really prioritising their career over family and private life.
0:06:39 > 0:06:43They are about 20%. It is not at all surprising that in the figures you
0:06:43 > 0:06:48were quoting just now, around 20% of women are going to be in the top
0:06:48 > 0:06:57echelons of any occupational ladder or career, music, politics, etc.
0:06:57 > 0:07:00Around 20% of women actually prioritise family life. Yes, they
0:07:00 > 0:07:06have jobs between leaving school or university, whatever, getting
0:07:06 > 0:07:09married and having children, and they want those jobs to be good
0:07:09 > 0:07:14jobs, well-paid jobs, they are not in any way lesser jobs. But then
0:07:14 > 0:07:17they probably drop out of the workforce permanently after they
0:07:17 > 0:07:21have children. And then in between you have got the people who try to
0:07:21 > 0:07:25have the best of both worlds. And it is the people who want the best of
0:07:25 > 0:07:30both worlds who are very often ambivalent, divided in their
0:07:30 > 0:07:36priorities. They want a career, they want a good job, but they also want
0:07:36 > 0:07:40to prioritise the family and that is where they are split.The best of
0:07:40 > 0:07:45both worlds, what are you hearing?I am with Francesca absolutely about
0:07:45 > 0:07:49how we have got to be alert to the nuances of language. To say that
0:07:49 > 0:07:54mothers are the culprits is absolutely appalling.Mothers bring
0:07:54 > 0:08:01up their children in a certain way and mothers are victims, as you put
0:08:01 > 0:08:05it, or they behave the way that they do because of the social construct
0:08:05 > 0:08:10in which they have grown up. Absolutely. It is about the social
0:08:10 > 0:08:13construct and visualisation. It is a terrible cliche but actually it is
0:08:13 > 0:08:20wonderful because I believe that! If she can't see it, she can't be it.
0:08:20 > 0:08:27When she looks at the FTSE 100, she will see only seven women CEOs
0:08:27 > 0:08:30currently. When she looks at Parliament is worldwide, she will
0:08:30 > 0:08:40see only 19% of women involved in those in a powerful way. We are not
0:08:40 > 0:08:45giving her the message from our broader cultural and social place
0:08:45 > 0:08:51that actually more is able to be achieved by her.LO wants to come in
0:08:51 > 0:08:56here. Professor, I will come back in a moment.To answer the question,
0:08:56 > 0:09:00the majority of women don't hold themselves back. The majority are
0:09:00 > 0:09:04self assured and confident and know what they want from life. To say
0:09:04 > 0:09:08anything differently would be insulting. I think what is holding
0:09:08 > 0:09:12women back is not social structures and sexism, it is not the
0:09:12 > 0:09:17patriarchy, I actually think it is the discussion about women's
0:09:17 > 0:09:19equality. Unfortunately I think it is a contemporary feminist movement
0:09:19 > 0:09:25holding women back, in many ways. This conversation sheds light on
0:09:25 > 0:09:28what it is doing. It says women are oppressed by language. It says when
0:09:28 > 0:09:35they go into the boardroom, they need schooling on how to speak up in
0:09:35 > 0:09:38meetings, as you said in the opening thing, they are weak flowers who
0:09:38 > 0:09:43need a leg up, helping hand. Putting out that message is far more
0:09:43 > 0:09:47damaging than worrying about how many women are in the FTSE 100. Most
0:09:47 > 0:09:51of them don't care about the FTSE 100 because we are never going to
0:09:51 > 0:09:55get to that position in life. The great that you need to see it to be
0:09:55 > 0:10:00it is really telling. It is this focus on symbolism. A world that is
0:10:00 > 0:10:05really different from the majority of women's lives. Contemporary
0:10:05 > 0:10:09feminists are very obsessed with the pay gap, the myth of the pay gap,
0:10:09 > 0:10:12women's language, sexist language, all this stuff that bypasses most
0:10:12 > 0:10:18women. Genuinely, unfortunately, it is contemporary feminism and the
0:10:18 > 0:10:22discussion around it that is mostly holding them back today.It has not
0:10:22 > 0:10:25bypassed most women. It has a material effect on their day-to-day
0:10:25 > 0:10:32function in broader culture. Of course it does. Those economic
0:10:32 > 0:10:37decisions are coming from predominantly men.This is the
0:10:37 > 0:10:41interesting thing. I am sure we will get onto a discussion about the K
0:10:41 > 0:10:44gap in relation to what has been happening at the BBC and in
0:10:44 > 0:10:48Hollywood. -- is the pay gap. The panic over extremely rich women
0:10:48 > 0:10:52earning varying degrees of hundreds of thousands of pounds does bypass
0:10:52 > 0:10:55most women because we are not having a genuine conversation about the
0:10:55 > 0:11:00lives of women and men, working-class women and men.Is it
0:11:00 > 0:11:04the fault feminism?I am not saying it is a fault of feminism. I am not
0:11:04 > 0:11:09saying that women are conspiring to women over and that would be
0:11:09 > 0:11:14ridiculous. The narrative, that women are weak, that they are
0:11:14 > 0:11:17oppressed by social structures, that they are at a disadvantage to men,
0:11:17 > 0:11:20and there are very few social structures that oppress women any
0:11:20 > 0:11:23more. The abortion law is the only place where women are legally
0:11:23 > 0:11:28discriminated against.
0:11:29 > 0:11:32discriminated against.So women are fine essentially?It is illegal to
0:11:32 > 0:11:37discriminate against women on the basis of sex. Women are more free
0:11:37 > 0:11:41than they ever have been. That is a fantastic fact. 100 years since some
0:11:41 > 0:11:45women got the vote and we are in a fantastic place and yet we are still
0:11:45 > 0:11:50pretending that this is a terrible world for us and I find that
0:11:50 > 0:11:54depressing.So many points to pick up on. The rest of the front row is
0:11:54 > 0:12:00wobbling! Professor, I will come to you in a moment to talk about your
0:12:00 > 0:12:03research but can I come to you? Would you mind? You were nodding all
0:12:03 > 0:12:10the way through what she was saying. In the bowtie, just come forward.
0:12:10 > 0:12:14She was saying part of the problem is feminism. Why were you agreeing
0:12:14 > 0:12:19so much?Absolutely, I pretty much agree with everything she just said.
0:12:19 > 0:12:23I am a feminist myself and I do think men and women should be equal.
0:12:23 > 0:12:27I believe we have absolutely achieved that. We have got to
0:12:27 > 0:12:30remember that our Prime Minister is a woman and we have lots of women in
0:12:30 > 0:12:35the Cabinet and we have more women in positions of power.So we are
0:12:35 > 0:12:39there, we have arrived?We have. And now it is just down to individuals
0:12:39 > 0:12:48to work hard and achieve.Your hand went up.It is OK to talk about the
0:12:48 > 0:12:52FTSE 100 and it is OK to talk about women in positions of power in
0:12:52 > 0:12:55politics, but if you look at more real-life examples, the teaching
0:12:55 > 0:13:01profession is dominated by women and general classroom teachers, but if
0:13:01 > 0:13:08you go up to headteachers, a much higher proportion are actually mail.
0:13:08 > 0:13:14It is OK to look wider, but you can see is that we do not have equality.
0:13:14 > 0:13:22I will come to you, and you as well because we will talk about the
0:13:22 > 0:13:29#metoo thing as well. Professor, you have done this research. Binna
0:13:29 > 0:13:35Kandola, have women been conditioned to be biased against their own sex?
0:13:35 > 0:13:38Your question originally was why don't women put themselves forward.
0:13:38 > 0:13:42The response that came back was that women fail to put themselves
0:13:42 > 0:13:47forward, so it was a women's fault. Where women do put themselves
0:13:47 > 0:13:50forward, they are criticised for it, so they are conditioned that if they
0:13:50 > 0:13:56put their head up, they will be criticised for doing it and they
0:13:56 > 0:14:00will learn not to put themselves in that position. In addition to that,
0:14:00 > 0:14:05the work we have done on the leadership prototype, whether we
0:14:05 > 0:14:10realise it or not, when we think about leaders, we think about a man.
0:14:10 > 0:14:14Is there an unconscious bias in women towards male leaders.Yes, men
0:14:14 > 0:14:18and women. When you think a better leader, you think about a man.
0:14:18 > 0:14:22Characteristics we associate with a leader, dominance, assertion, they
0:14:22 > 0:14:26are characteristics associated with the stereotype of a man. The
0:14:26 > 0:14:30stereotypes of women, compassion, care, empathy, men can be
0:14:30 > 0:14:35compassionate, caring and empathetic, but those
0:14:35 > 0:14:41characteristics are least linked to the leadership prototype. There will
0:14:41 > 0:14:46be a pro-male bias in men and women when we think about leaders. It is a
0:14:46 > 0:14:53generational thing. It just kind of... That stereotype has been
0:14:53 > 0:14:57around for a long time.How do you break it?It takes a long time. You
0:14:57 > 0:15:07can break it. Discussions like this help.Delighted to be of assistance!
0:15:07 > 0:15:11There are things we can do when making promotion decisions, we need
0:15:11 > 0:15:16to thinkhealth fair we are being in the decisions were making. Give us
0:15:16 > 0:15:20an extremely simple things we could do, if we could be bothered, and we
0:15:20 > 0:15:26are not bothered enough.Something that was done in the civil service
0:15:26 > 0:15:30and was very effective was they had a new rule that every single
0:15:30 > 0:15:34selection panel, whether for a new job or promotion, had to have at
0:15:34 > 0:15:38least woman on it. Better to have more than one because, of course,
0:15:38 > 0:15:43these panels have five, six or seven people. As soon as they had one
0:15:43 > 0:15:46woman on every panel you were not allowed to have a panel with no
0:15:46 > 0:15:51woman. You couldn't say they were not available or she was on holiday
0:15:51 > 0:15:56or
0:15:56 > 0:15:58or whatever, you had to have a woman. Immediately the promotion
0:15:58 > 0:16:01rate for women change.That is fascinating. John Evans, should we
0:16:01 > 0:16:05be pushing through quotas, affirmative action? In the
0:16:05 > 0:16:10workplace, on the boards, parliaments, wherever? 50/50?The
0:16:10 > 0:16:15short answer is yes. You had to understand the context, we all do.
0:16:15 > 0:16:19There has been 1000 years or more of male dominance in this country.
0:16:19 > 0:16:24Unravelling all of that so women get a fair deal is enormously difficult.
0:16:24 > 0:16:29A lot more than 1000 years. Francesca is a biblical scholar, she
0:16:29 > 0:16:35will tell you! A long time.They have built up all sorts of things,
0:16:35 > 0:16:42strange things have been mentioned. When you go for appointments, men
0:16:42 > 0:16:46characteristically talk about what they are going to do, in normal
0:16:46 > 0:16:50parlance this is called boasting. This is what I'm going to do. Women
0:16:50 > 0:16:57talk about what they have done. And we have talked ourselves -- taught
0:16:57 > 0:17:02ourselves that what is important is not achievement but what some people
0:17:02 > 0:17:07might call EXPLETIVE or boasting for the future, that is very much a male
0:17:07 > 0:17:11characteristic. We sustained male dominance by giving these strange
0:17:11 > 0:17:17things. You have to breakthrough. That is the unconscious bias.You
0:17:17 > 0:17:21have to breakthrough by giving things like Luiters. There has been
0:17:21 > 0:17:25positive discrimination for men for 1000 years and more, let's have a
0:17:25 > 0:17:30bit of positive discrimination for women as a corrective action to give
0:17:30 > 0:17:35a bit of fairness.Honestly, if I thought I had been asked here to
0:17:35 > 0:17:40talk today because I was a woman, I would have walked out. I think it is
0:17:40 > 0:17:44deeply insulting to suggest that gender should come into the question
0:17:44 > 0:17:51of a woman's position in her appointment. Lego 's and quotas are
0:17:51 > 0:17:55basically saying that women need an extra helping hand to get to the
0:17:55 > 0:18:03position that men are in. Mutch leg-ups and quotas. With greatest
0:18:03 > 0:18:05respect to the professors, this quack psychoanalysis about men and
0:18:05 > 0:18:10women as if men and women act in certain ways, it is straying into
0:18:10 > 0:18:16biological determinism. Women do not show signs of empathy, they are not
0:18:16 > 0:18:19scared of being bossy. I know some of the other panellists were saying
0:18:19 > 0:18:24this, we are doing women a disservice. I genuinely think we do
0:18:24 > 0:18:28women a disservice. Policy of discrimination, women do not want
0:18:28 > 0:18:34that -- positive discrimination, women do not want that.But men are
0:18:34 > 0:18:38in control. Mill values decide who will be appointed. Male values
0:18:38 > 0:18:43decide who will be a leader and a follower. You had to do something to
0:18:43 > 0:18:50correct that. It is built in from young. Even kids of six and seven,
0:18:50 > 0:18:55the girls are taught to say, even as young as that, that the boys are
0:18:55 > 0:19:03more important. Try and buy a birthday card for a young girl and
0:19:03 > 0:19:07you will find every one of them has a particular view of young children.
0:19:07 > 0:19:13Don't laugh, don't try.People always go to the pink/ blue debate,
0:19:13 > 0:19:16it bores most of us, with the greatest respect.
0:19:16 > 0:19:20APPLAUSE It is not pink or blue, it is
0:19:20 > 0:19:23activity or passivity, it is who should lead and who should follow.
0:19:23 > 0:19:29We have to break that particular mould.
0:19:29 > 0:19:34You are of different generations, maybe you have a different
0:19:34 > 0:19:39experience, a different life experience. Ella, you are under 30.
0:19:39 > 0:19:44A brief response?We are celebrating 100 years since some women got of
0:19:44 > 0:19:48the vote, we have come a long way. The whole narrative of women being
0:19:48 > 0:19:52held back by language or the pink or blue debate denies the fact that
0:19:52 > 0:19:56women have come a very long way through struggle and battle and
0:19:56 > 0:20:00political debate and winning, and being powerful. The idea that
0:20:00 > 0:20:05language will hold us back now is, I think, frankly, historically
0:20:05 > 0:20:10illiterate. We have a lot further to go and I
0:20:10 > 0:20:14think...John, can you allow Clare to talk? Honestly, typical male
0:20:14 > 0:20:21behaviour!Male behaviour in a feminist cause.Don't you be
0:20:21 > 0:20:25assertive with me! I think we have come an awful long
0:20:25 > 0:20:30year in the 100 -- an awful long way in the 100 years since some women
0:20:30 > 0:20:34got the vote, but that does not mean that women's outcomes are
0:20:34 > 0:20:38necessarily any better. Women are more likely to live in poverty than
0:20:38 > 0:20:41men, we have heard stories about harassment in the workplace, that is
0:20:41 > 0:20:47not equality. I think it is really important that we think about how to
0:20:47 > 0:20:51change things, I am with John in thinking about how we make a big
0:20:51 > 0:20:58change.Grab a and push it forward, quotas?Grab it and push it forward.
0:20:58 > 0:21:03Quotas are a useful tool to push for progress. They have been used in
0:21:03 > 0:21:06businesses, parliament. Even when appointing Cabinet, choosing
0:21:06 > 0:21:13ministers. David Cameron, before the 2010 election, he said if I am
0:21:13 > 0:21:16elected a third of my Government will be women. That is an informal
0:21:16 > 0:21:22quota. It is getting at an expectation that we need to look a
0:21:22 > 0:21:28bit more representative.That some people watching will say it should
0:21:28 > 0:21:33be about the best person, you have heard this argument before, the best
0:21:33 > 0:21:38person for the job. That is in the interest of the company.I think it
0:21:38 > 0:21:43is a strategy to maintain the status quo. 150 years ago when women were
0:21:43 > 0:21:46campaigning for the votes, the arguments would be they have the
0:21:46 > 0:21:50wrong disposition or we should keep... They are too emotional for
0:21:50 > 0:21:57politics. You need the best person for the job, that is a strategy to
0:21:57 > 0:22:01keep things as they are. When you look at Cabinet, when we did our
0:22:01 > 0:22:06research on how do you become a minister, you say how do you
0:22:06 > 0:22:10become... What is the best way to become a Cabinet minister? People
0:22:10 > 0:22:14say you had to be a trusted and loyal ally to the Prime Minister.
0:22:14 > 0:22:18That is how a lot of ministers get their job. That is not the best
0:22:18 > 0:22:23person for the job. We need to get rid of bad language.The most
0:22:23 > 0:22:35compliant person. Theresa May get criticisms for being emotional is,
0:22:35 > 0:22:39robotic, the Maybot. If she were a man, would that be levelled at her
0:22:39 > 0:22:44in the same way?I think there is a double standard when it comes to
0:22:44 > 0:22:47women and women leaders. Theresa May for example can be criticised
0:22:47 > 0:22:52because she does not have children, because she does not know about what
0:22:52 > 0:22:58it is like to be a mother, she can be criticised for everything.By
0:22:58 > 0:23:02other women, Andrea Leadsom, for example.There is a certain state
0:23:02 > 0:23:07that if you are a woman in the public eye you will be criticised,
0:23:07 > 0:23:12it goes back to antiquity. Catherine, respond to the quotas?I
0:23:12 > 0:23:16do not think they were, they automatically lead people to think
0:23:16 > 0:23:23she is only there because of the quota. They have backfired in India.
0:23:23 > 0:23:27The Untouchables, the policy was to try to raise the Untouchables by
0:23:27 > 0:23:31having a quota system, it backfired in India, it does not work. We know
0:23:31 > 0:23:36it does not work. It is not a good idea. Helena Morrissey, one of the
0:23:36 > 0:23:40top finance officers in the country, she was against quotas and she
0:23:40 > 0:23:46insisted that the way forward was a voluntary way with the 30% club
0:23:46 > 0:23:50which they initiated and has achieved astonishing results. The
0:23:50 > 0:23:57voluntary by far the best. Quotas as far too rigid and blunt and not
0:23:57 > 0:24:02politically acceptable to most people.The difficulty with targets
0:24:02 > 0:24:09and quotas, if you establish targets and quotas on gender, why not race?
0:24:09 > 0:24:18Then how would you manage that?Then you get yourself into the
0:24:18 > 0:24:21middle-class BM e-mail against the white working... Then we start
0:24:21 > 0:24:27shipping ourselves up.On one topic it sounds sensible, but if that
0:24:27 > 0:24:33favours whites, then you have an issue with race.I am desperate to
0:24:33 > 0:24:37correct a couple of things.You should come here more often.Women
0:24:37 > 0:24:43do not need a leg up, men have had a leg up by having the shoulders
0:24:43 > 0:24:47tapped. It happens in the clubs, it happens all the Gulf, we are not
0:24:47 > 0:24:52there. Men have had a leg up for a very long time and we do not need
0:24:52 > 0:24:56special treatment, we need equality. And since when are we talking about
0:24:56 > 0:25:00women being the only parents and families? We are quite regressive in
0:25:00 > 0:25:05a number of statements we have made. That is changing, we are talking
0:25:05 > 0:25:09historically but things are changing.Dads have careers.The
0:25:09 > 0:25:14inference is that result and Lee things are changing. Audience? Good
0:25:14 > 0:25:19morning.
0:25:21 > 0:25:24morning.Ella made the point that language is not so significant any
0:25:24 > 0:25:28more, but we have had a lot in the news about Cyrille Regis and his
0:25:28 > 0:25:36significance and impact on football related to race. There is also to
0:25:36 > 0:25:40language that you can't use that was used in the 70s and 80s when he was
0:25:40 > 0:25:51playing, and there are similar terms used to keep women down, the whole
0:25:51 > 0:25:56bossy/ strident, that kind of language used about women.What if a
0:25:56 > 0:26:00woman is strident?Then she is criticised much more than an
0:26:00 > 0:26:05assertive... Or it is taken as natural for a man to act in that
0:26:05 > 0:26:10way, but when women do it they are criticised.
0:26:10 > 0:26:13This whole idea about things that are counter-productive, Catherine,
0:26:13 > 0:26:18you believe
0:26:20 > 0:26:25you believe that the #metoo movement has been and is counter-productive.
0:26:25 > 0:26:28What you mean?The workplace is a social environment as well somewhere
0:26:28 > 0:26:32to get work done, there are always social events or social time over
0:26:32 > 0:26:37the coffee machine or whatever where people are interacting in a
0:26:37 > 0:26:42completely separate, private way. Flirting and sexual interaction will
0:26:42 > 0:26:47be an inevitable part of almost all workplaces.Which we discussed a
0:26:47 > 0:26:51couple of weeks ago, but specifically this growing #metoo
0:26:51 > 0:26:56campaign, are things being conflated?What is happening is that
0:26:56 > 0:27:01anything remotely sexual is treated as completely out of bounds.People
0:27:01 > 0:27:06are talking about rate.Rate is occasionally part of it, but the
0:27:06 > 0:27:10vast majority of the complaints are things that are really quite minor
0:27:10 > 0:27:14and trivial like a hand on a knee or a date that did not go as well as
0:27:14 > 0:27:19somebody wanted to.-- people are talking about rate.Rate is
0:27:19 > 0:27:25occasionally part of it.
0:27:26 > 0:27:29occasionally part of it.By conflating rape with bad dates and
0:27:29 > 0:27:32incompetent seductions, it is a mess. What do you mean by things
0:27:32 > 0:27:40that did not go as well as you would have hoped?
0:27:41 > 0:27:51have hoped?There is an example of the bad date, Aziz Ansari. She went
0:27:51 > 0:27:55out of her way to leave her boyfriend, seduces Manning get a
0:27:55 > 0:28:01date with him and it did not go the way she had expected to go in her
0:28:01 > 0:28:05imagination. They didn't in fact have six, but she decided because
0:28:05 > 0:28:10they had been kissing anyway she did not particularly like that it was
0:28:10 > 0:28:14sexual assault. -- they didn't in fact have sex. She only decided it
0:28:14 > 0:28:18was sexual assault after a discussion with her girlfriends
0:28:18 > 0:28:22after the date and she posted this on social media. This is the kind of
0:28:22 > 0:28:26thing that is bringing the whole movement, which originally had a
0:28:26 > 0:28:31very good point, like Harvey Weinstein, into disrepute. It is
0:28:31 > 0:28:38just women grumbling about bad dates. It is weakening the message,
0:28:38 > 0:28:45ignoring the C of E -- the serious problem to focus on trivia.One of
0:28:45 > 0:28:48the examples you gave, one of the things she found objectionable from
0:28:48 > 0:28:51what a report said was that he kept sticking his fingers down her
0:28:51 > 0:28:58throat. Whether you want to call a sexual harassment, it is still a
0:28:58 > 0:29:02very aggressive and invasive action to take. Whilst I can understand
0:29:02 > 0:29:07some of the points you are making, I do not necessarily... I think it is
0:29:07 > 0:29:11well worth some women who may feel they have been sexually harassed or
0:29:11 > 0:29:23sexually abused, it does not matter, if it gets more people talking who
0:29:23 > 0:29:32have been sexually abused or harassed, it is worth it.What about
0:29:32 > 0:29:42telling people what I am going to do, not what I have done...Somebody
0:29:42 > 0:29:45having their hands but many, she said was a little thing, I find that
0:29:45 > 0:29:51offensive, when you have it done ten times at work, then you go to a new
0:29:51 > 0:29:54job and your bottom is patted, these little things add up.Do you
0:29:54 > 0:29:58understand the art and about #metoo is counter-productive?Not
0:29:58 > 0:30:04massively.-- do you understand the argument?Yes, I think #metoo has
0:30:04 > 0:30:08not done much good for women. I question the idea it is a movement.
0:30:08 > 0:30:12If we took a poll on the streets of Southampton, there are very few
0:30:12 > 0:30:16women who would tell you they are part of the #metoo movement. It
0:30:16 > 0:30:20exists online, it is a hashtag, it is not a feminist upsurge, people
0:30:20 > 0:30:26are not signing up to parties.How does it portray women? About the
0:30:26 > 0:30:29question is whether women hold themselves back, I think the message
0:30:29 > 0:30:35buying #metoo istelling women to hold themselves back, via sexual
0:30:35 > 0:30:39interaction, CMN, telling them and they had to define every negative...
0:30:39 > 0:30:44The Aziz Ansari example is great, it is a bad sexual experience, all of
0:30:44 > 0:30:48us are probably had one at one point, it has been told is a
0:30:48 > 0:30:52traumatic event. We are encouraging women to see the very minor
0:30:52 > 0:30:56awkwardness in times of sexual interaction as traumatic. That is
0:30:56 > 0:31:00doing a disservice to the seriousness of rape, sexual assault
0:31:00 > 0:31:04and also women's power and strength. There is nothing good about #metoo,
0:31:04 > 0:31:10I think, and I think most women would agree.
0:31:10 > 0:31:14It is a good thing that so many women are saying that happen to me
0:31:14 > 0:31:18as well. That is a very powerful thing. Many men and women are now
0:31:18 > 0:31:21saying that the way I have been treated in the past is not
0:31:21 > 0:31:25acceptable. That means that we need to change the culture in our society
0:31:25 > 0:31:32in a really big way. One woman we interviewed for the book we have
0:31:32 > 0:31:37just done said it is like water torture. It is dripped after drip
0:31:37 > 0:31:44after drip of little sexual remarks, little jokes, little nasty remarks,
0:31:44 > 0:31:51insults, jokes that only men laugh at. It is hateful.Nobody here, I
0:31:51 > 0:31:55don't think any sensible person would defend bad behaviour, would
0:31:55 > 0:31:58defend the idea that women have got to put up with jokes and comments,
0:31:58 > 0:32:02anything like that. We're not saying it is part of life and get on with
0:32:02 > 0:32:07it. But comparing the low level behaviour we are talking about to
0:32:07 > 0:32:09water torture shows the extreme nature of this debate. #metoo has
0:32:09 > 0:32:16blown wide open what we mean by that term sexual harassment, for example.
0:32:16 > 0:32:21Actually most women do not subscribe to the #metoo thing. I have called
0:32:21 > 0:32:24it a middle-class women's club. It is journalists and celebrities
0:32:24 > 0:32:28subscribing to this. People on Twitter and not representative of
0:32:28 > 0:32:34the nation.Do you subscribe to it? I think I do. I think we are in
0:32:34 > 0:32:39danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water if we say that these
0:32:39 > 0:32:45minor, what people are referring to as minor problems, discount the
0:32:45 > 0:32:49entire campaign. Whatever it is that you think about a hand on the knee,
0:32:49 > 0:32:52if we say those things don't matter and the whole campaign is
0:32:52 > 0:32:55ridiculous, that is an error. Anybody else want to comment over
0:32:55 > 0:33:02here? Claire?Thank you. I think it is a movement and it is a movement
0:33:02 > 0:33:05because it is changing things. What was really interesting about the
0:33:05 > 0:33:11whole incident with the Presidents Club, for the first time since I can
0:33:11 > 0:33:15remember, a whole load of really big organisations just backed away from
0:33:15 > 0:33:19it and said it is not something we want to do. What that says to me is
0:33:19 > 0:33:23that the mood is changing and it has changed.So this is not women
0:33:23 > 0:33:27holding themselves back but marching forward. It is of the unions have
0:33:27 > 0:33:33changed, smoke-filled rooms full of men
0:33:34 > 0:33:36men protecting pay differentials on their own self-esteem and women in
0:33:36 > 0:33:42the workplace challenging their own positions. Things have changed at
0:33:42 > 0:33:46the TUC.Things have changed. The general secretary of the TUC is a
0:33:46 > 0:33:50woman. Most unions have women as general secretaries. The big ones
0:33:50 > 0:33:55don't but many do.It was a day of the dinosaurs before.We have all
0:33:55 > 0:34:00been called that!Have you been called that?Oh, yes. The fact of
0:34:00 > 0:34:06the matter is that in the traits you movement, equal rights, whether it
0:34:06 > 0:34:10is to do with racist behaviour or sexual behaviour, is now taken very
0:34:10 > 0:34:16seriously. -- in the trade union movement. A very large proportion of
0:34:16 > 0:34:21people in trade unions are now women. And they are now making the
0:34:21 > 0:34:26policy, making the way forward. I think this might be the basis of a
0:34:26 > 0:34:30great surge of trade union membership, which will be good for
0:34:30 > 0:34:34women. And good for the country as a whole.How do we move forward,
0:34:34 > 0:34:39Kevin?I agree with much of what John is saying, however the
0:34:39 > 0:34:43policymakers who made the decisions, the laws about gender equality, you
0:34:43 > 0:34:48talk about the lived experience of women in the workplace, that is
0:34:48 > 0:34:54entirely different. I will give one simple example, which is a woman I
0:34:54 > 0:34:58know applying for therapy, who works for a major unionised organisation,
0:34:58 > 0:35:04a major UK employer, and she did voluntary overtime at work, as a
0:35:04 > 0:35:08result of which, in the canteen, her chair was accidentally kicked over
0:35:08 > 0:35:12while she was sitting on it, her tray was accidentally knocked off
0:35:12 > 0:35:16the table, people accidentally bumped into her, her car was
0:35:16 > 0:35:20accidentally bashed by another vehicle, because over time it was a
0:35:20 > 0:35:26province of men. What was a woman doing taking them's work?When was
0:35:26 > 0:35:33this?Last year. There is insidious, invisible behaviour going on. I
0:35:33 > 0:35:37agree with the drip drip notion that goes on. I want to say something
0:35:37 > 0:35:43very quickly about the work of Professor Ryan. They said CVs to
0:35:43 > 0:35:48businesses for executive roles. All they did was change the name of the
0:35:48 > 0:35:52person. When we talk about language, the very name a person has is
0:35:52 > 0:35:57crucially important. They said CVs and they changed the name of the
0:35:57 > 0:36:00person, and when the perceived name was male, there were more likely to
0:36:00 > 0:36:05get an interview than a female. And finally, the work on the glass cliff
0:36:05 > 0:36:08that they did, when they looked at board level appointments, and they
0:36:08 > 0:36:13looked at FTSE 100 companies with women on the board, and they found
0:36:13 > 0:36:17that women were more likely to be appointed as director into a failing
0:36:17 > 0:36:20company that was destined for failure than on boards which were
0:36:20 > 0:36:25thrusting forward and striving forward. There is an in-built
0:36:25 > 0:36:32unconscious bias. I believe we need to change the behaviour of men.Last
0:36:32 > 0:36:36word, Professor, very quickly. One sentence. If we need to change, as
0:36:36 > 0:36:41Kevin argues, is that the way ahead, taking the behaviour of men?The
0:36:41 > 0:36:45bias in leadership roles is in men and women, so naturally we need to
0:36:45 > 0:36:50talk to men but we need women in the room as well. We need to look at all
0:36:50 > 0:36:56of our bias is towards men for leadership roles.Final word,
0:36:56 > 0:37:01Catherine?I agree with you. The problem is not men, it is women as
0:37:01 > 0:37:04well. Women are just as prejudiced against women as men are and that
0:37:04 > 0:37:11has been shown in loads of research. Thank you all very much for your
0:37:11 > 0:37:15participation. And you're fine thoughts and contributions and
0:37:15 > 0:37:18exchanges.
0:37:18 > 0:37:20If you have something to say about that debate log on
0:37:20 > 0:37:23to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions, and follow the link to where you can
0:37:23 > 0:37:28join in the discussion online or contribute on Twitter.
0:37:28 > 0:37:30Next at Oasis Academy Lord's Hill, here in Southampton,
0:37:30 > 0:37:38we'll be debating if evidence is a problem for religions.
0:37:39 > 0:37:42But before that, make a note of this email address.
0:37:42 > 0:37:43It's audiencetbq@mentorn.tv
0:37:43 > 0:37:45if you'd like to apply to be in the audience at
0:37:45 > 0:37:47a future programme.
0:37:47 > 0:37:50We're in Oxford next Sunday, Leicester on February 18th and Bath
0:37:50 > 0:37:55the week after that.
0:37:55 > 0:37:5870 years ago, an amazing discovery in the Qumran Caves
0:37:58 > 0:38:04by the Dead Sea was announced to the world.
0:38:04 > 0:38:07Ancient manuscripts, written between 200 years BC and 68
0:38:07 > 0:38:09years CE were found, some in pottery jars,
0:38:09 > 0:38:14some in thousands of fragments.
0:38:14 > 0:38:17The scrolls turned out to be the very earliest group
0:38:17 > 0:38:19of Old Testament and other religious writings ever found.
0:38:19 > 0:38:22Some were written in Hebrew, some in Aramaic, some in Greek.
0:38:22 > 0:38:24They threw new light on the Second Temple period
0:38:24 > 0:38:28of the Jewish religion.
0:38:28 > 0:38:31They revealed some of the day to day prayers and religious rituals
0:38:31 > 0:38:34of a specific community which believed in ideas of end
0:38:34 > 0:38:38times and a coming apocalypse.
0:38:38 > 0:38:41Some of the writings are about the times and places
0:38:41 > 0:38:44when Jesus and his disciples are said to have existed, but none
0:38:44 > 0:38:45makes any reference to them at all.
0:38:45 > 0:38:52Is evidence a problem for religions?
0:38:52 > 0:38:58Francesca, on Google scholar. Excellent! Very often there is a
0:38:58 > 0:39:02problem that some people of faith can start with their conclusions and
0:39:02 > 0:39:07cherry pick the evidence to fit with their conclusions and ignore the
0:39:07 > 0:39:11evidence that contradicts them. Absolutely. This has been the case
0:39:11 > 0:39:16with the Christian Bible. We like to think that the books collected in
0:39:16 > 0:39:19that particular binding are somehow authoritative, historically reliable
0:39:19 > 0:39:25and coherent in their theology, their ideology, etc. But actually we
0:39:25 > 0:39:29have got numerous different Bibles. The Roman Catholics have a different
0:39:29 > 0:39:32Bible from eastern orthodox Christians from Roman Catholics from
0:39:32 > 0:39:39Protestants. The same thing was true in the ancient world. There was no
0:39:39 > 0:39:43such thing as a Bible at the time of the Dead Sea scrolls but we did have
0:39:43 > 0:39:49very diverse Jewish communities who has usually diverse ideas about what
0:39:49 > 0:39:51religious writings were authoritative. The Dead Sea scrolls
0:39:51 > 0:39:55are shown is that many texts that later Jewish groups and Christian
0:39:55 > 0:40:00things we didn't think were authoritative very important to some
0:40:00 > 0:40:05communities. The scrolls came all over the southern area of what we
0:40:05 > 0:40:13now call Israel Palestine. Some are libraries in major cities. It shows
0:40:13 > 0:40:16that they were very diverse but more importantly it shows that some of
0:40:16 > 0:40:20the things that Christians say about Jesus, that he exclusively brought
0:40:20 > 0:40:25to bear, the coming apocalypse, the kingdom of God, they were views that
0:40:25 > 0:40:28were very much mainstream to different sort of Jewish groups than
0:40:28 > 0:40:36people previously realised.There are 27 books in the New Testament?
0:40:36 > 0:40:39Someone not included and somewhere. In the books that were not included,
0:40:39 > 0:40:45what do they say about Jesus? It paints a different picture of Jesus
0:40:45 > 0:40:48from that evidence.Give us the other Jesus. The other Jesus
0:40:48 > 0:40:52includes cheese is being a right little monster when he was a kid.
0:40:52 > 0:40:57Some of the apocryphal Gospels that were written not very long after the
0:40:57 > 0:41:06new test -- New Testament Gospels, they talk about him killing his
0:41:06 > 0:41:11playmates, striking his teachers, and Jesus that is so anti-sex that
0:41:11 > 0:41:14he appears in the bedroom of a newly married couple and tell them not to
0:41:14 > 0:41:21perform this filthy intercourse. He tells them that they must take their
0:41:21 > 0:41:25families and parents. It is a very different Jesus to the one that most
0:41:25 > 0:41:29Christians in the west like to promote.The spin doctors got hold
0:41:29 > 0:41:34of it and they created the Jesus that is far more compatible.I don't
0:41:34 > 0:41:37think you have got to start with the conclusion and then look at the
0:41:37 > 0:41:42evidence.Did you know about that Jesus?I did. I will speak a bit
0:41:42 > 0:41:47about my story.With the time we have got, just address that point.
0:41:47 > 0:41:51Most scholars, as Francesca will know, think that the Gospel of Saint
0:41:51 > 0:41:54Thomas is the only one outside the canon that we have in the New
0:41:54 > 0:41:57Testament that contains any historical information about Jesus.
0:41:57 > 0:42:01Most scholars in New Testament scholarship will say that things
0:42:01 > 0:42:05like the cross gospel, the gospel of Peter, these are the apocryphal
0:42:05 > 0:42:11Gospels, have no real historical content but... This is mainstream
0:42:11 > 0:42:19scholars. There is a Jewish scholar, and he thinks the gospel of Thomas
0:42:19 > 0:42:21has some accurate historical information but he doesn't think any
0:42:21 > 0:42:25of the others have historical information. He goes with the
0:42:25 > 0:42:28synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the Gospel of Thomas as a
0:42:28 > 0:42:33supplement to that. I don't think you have got to start with the
0:42:33 > 0:42:36conclusion and go with the evidence. My story is a looked at the evidence
0:42:36 > 0:42:40before I was a Christian, the evidence for Jesus's life, his
0:42:40 > 0:42:45claims and his resurrection, and I found that convincing. During my
0:42:45 > 0:42:49time to medical school, that convinced me further.The historical
0:42:49 > 0:42:54evidence for his resurrection?There is plenty of historical evidence for
0:42:54 > 0:42:57his resurrection. These are things we would expect to see if he was
0:42:57 > 0:43:00raised from the dead that we would not see otherwise. Appearing to his
0:43:00 > 0:43:03disciples gone his sceptics, people who persecuted Christianity like
0:43:03 > 0:43:09simple and then converted. This is relevant to the Dead Sea scrolls in
0:43:09 > 0:43:15the following way...Is this evidence or stories?I think your
0:43:15 > 0:43:22definition of historical evidence is different to mine.This is
0:43:22 > 0:43:26mainstream scholars.I am a mainstream scholar and I have a
0:43:26 > 0:43:30different idea of evidence.Not really. If we look at New Testament
0:43:30 > 0:43:34historians, they pretty much all so that Jesus's disciples, like simple,
0:43:34 > 0:43:40had ostensible appearances of Jesus after his death.But by his own
0:43:40 > 0:43:44claim, he never met Jesus when he was alive. Most of them agree that
0:43:44 > 0:43:50his team was empty but scholars doubt this.He was a crucifixion
0:43:50 > 0:43:54victim, and he wouldn't have been buried. What the Dead Sea scrolls
0:43:54 > 0:43:59show ask if you look at the Temple scroll is that crucifixion victims
0:43:59 > 0:44:02in the first century were nevertheless buried, which supports
0:44:02 > 0:44:08what the Bible says.We are delighted to have another scholar on
0:44:08 > 0:44:14the show. It is vital that we do. Do you think that some scholars are
0:44:14 > 0:44:21subject to confirmation bias and they see something that fits their
0:44:21 > 0:44:25picture and decide to have it and they see Jesus is approving of sex
0:44:25 > 0:44:27and killing other children and bringing them back to life in some
0:44:27 > 0:44:33bizarre childhood trick and they discard that? Is something going on
0:44:33 > 0:44:36here?I can tell you something that is particularly amazing about
0:44:36 > 0:44:40scholars working on the Dead Sea scrolls. You can find scholars of
0:44:40 > 0:44:43different kinds beating each other out but what is amazing about
0:44:43 > 0:44:48scholars of the Dead Sea scrolls, we are Christians, Jewish,
0:44:48 > 0:44:51non-believers, men and women, and because the material is brand-new,
0:44:51 > 0:44:57we are just taking delight between us in puzzling what it might mean.
0:44:57 > 0:45:03It is completely new evidence. You find it is much more a case of
0:45:03 > 0:45:07teamwork and a lot less polemics against who has got the true
0:45:07 > 0:45:14interpretation. And that makes it very exciting.
0:45:14 > 0:45:21Why are using it is new? It has been out since 1947.That is not true,
0:45:21 > 0:45:24much of it has only been out since the 1990s. The earliest publications
0:45:24 > 0:45:32were in the 50s.The Damascus document from Egypt. It is the same
0:45:32 > 0:45:36of some of the dead Sea Scrolls. The dead Sea Scrolls give your picture
0:45:36 > 0:45:442000 years ago the reality...Why wasn't Jesus mentioned?
0:45:45 > 0:45:48wasn't Jesus mentioned?He is kind of mentioned. He seems to know about
0:45:48 > 0:45:54what was going on in Qumran and the dead Sea Scrolls. You get the terms
0:45:54 > 0:45:58sons of a are used by the Qumranites, lots of phrases in the
0:45:58 > 0:46:04dead Sea Scrolls appear in the new Testament. He was aware of Qumran,
0:46:04 > 0:46:13he might have been a member.We have no evidence.We have.That he was
0:46:13 > 0:46:17there? No. Most of the first Christians were Jewish, it came out
0:46:17 > 0:46:23of a Jewish background.They knew the dead Sea scroll material.That
0:46:23 > 0:46:27is not what I said.No, what I'm saying is that Paul knew about the
0:46:27 > 0:46:31writings of the dead Sea Scrolls but the problem is we all seem to rely
0:46:31 > 0:46:38on the dead Sea Scrolls as if they were gospel, they were not.I never
0:46:38 > 0:46:46said anything of the kinds. I am saying that we are misleading
0:46:46 > 0:46:57ourselves if we think the Dead Sea Scrolls are...I know you have your
0:46:57 > 0:47:07own views on the subject?We will never understand the Dead Sea
0:47:07 > 0:47:11Scrolls or the Bible is unless you understand the Egyptian factor.I
0:47:11 > 0:47:14suggest we look at the Dead Sea Scrolls in order to understand the
0:47:14 > 0:47:19dead Sea Scrolls.The Egyptian factor, ITV, Saturday night, I like
0:47:19 > 0:47:23it.You cannot understand the Dead Sea Scrolls unless you looked Egypt.
0:47:23 > 0:47:31That is your view.I think you on your way to saying something?What I
0:47:31 > 0:47:34want to say about the Dead Sea Scrolls as we found copies thereof
0:47:34 > 0:47:38what we now call the Bible, the Old Testament part of the Christian
0:47:38 > 0:47:46Bible and the Jewish Bible that over 1000 years earlier than the first
0:47:46 > 0:47:50complete copies we have had. In itself, it is fantastic. On the
0:47:50 > 0:47:54whole, we can't really speak about the Bible or the Dead Sea Scrolls
0:47:54 > 0:47:58like Francesca was mentioning because they are Scrolls, if you're
0:47:58 > 0:48:01interested in texts, collecting Scrolls, you can collect as many as
0:48:01 > 0:48:06you want. You do not need to decide what goes between the covers of a
0:48:06 > 0:48:11book and what order it goes into. What is a very important point to
0:48:11 > 0:48:15make is that a lot of that text is pretty similar to what we have now,
0:48:15 > 0:48:20but there are also some small differences between the text as we
0:48:20 > 0:48:25have it now.But Charlotte, does evidence, hard evidence, really
0:48:25 > 0:48:30matter? Are the deeper truth is not the point?I find when it comes to
0:48:30 > 0:48:34the deeper truths about the Hebrew Bible...The deeper truths about
0:48:34 > 0:48:39love and how to treat your fellow humans, the general message?The
0:48:39 > 0:48:44general message I take from the Hebrew Bible that the whole story is
0:48:44 > 0:48:47a bit of a mess, it all went badly wrong, the promises made to the
0:48:47 > 0:48:52Kings and the priests were not coming true, the country was lost,
0:48:52 > 0:48:59the Excel...Did Moses exist?I do not think in that form, no. As a
0:48:59 > 0:49:07literary figure, yes.But as an actual person, you do not believe
0:49:07 > 0:49:11Moses necessarily existed?I don't. Moses?
0:49:11 > 0:49:16Yes.I have studied one of these Scrolls intensely, the copper
0:49:16 > 0:49:22scroll, there are Greek letters which spell out a name, there are
0:49:22 > 0:49:27Egyptian hieroglyphics. You have not looked at it, you don't know.Excuse
0:49:27 > 0:49:32me, how do you know I have not looked at it?If you looked Egypt,
0:49:32 > 0:49:37they were waiting for three messiahs, two messiahs.
0:49:37 > 0:49:44Two messiahs mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and a prophet.Did
0:49:44 > 0:49:50Jesus say he was the son of God?We don't know anything Jesus said.
0:49:50 > 0:49:56Everything credited to him has come to a severe texts. All sorts of
0:49:56 > 0:50:00words...According to some scholars there is no evidence, he said he was
0:50:00 > 0:50:05the son of man, quite a common phrase.A common phrase, it could
0:50:05 > 0:50:10mean human, but it is quite a loaded phrase. The proffered Ezequiel talks
0:50:10 > 0:50:15about a high state is human. The son of God was a royal title, it was
0:50:15 > 0:50:18used of Kings, the Kings of Jerusalem and the Kings of many
0:50:18 > 0:50:24other ancient West Asian cultures. It was a claim to semi-divinity.One
0:50:24 > 0:50:28example that most historians think Jesus said, historians take a
0:50:28 > 0:50:32critical approach and think Jesus said some things in the gospel but
0:50:32 > 0:50:38not others. Pretty much all new Testament historians think that when
0:50:38 > 0:50:42John the Baptist sent his followers to Jesus and said are you the one
0:50:42 > 0:50:51who is to come? You see the blind see, the deaf hear, the dead raised,
0:50:51 > 0:50:55go and tell them. He is quoting Isaiah and Sam is coming he has
0:50:55 > 0:51:02quoted that a little, rearrange that a little. -- he is quoting Isaiah
0:51:02 > 0:51:06and psalms. But there was another passage which said God will send a
0:51:06 > 0:51:10messiah whom heaven and earth will obey, and when he does you will see
0:51:10 > 0:51:14the dead raised, the lame walking, the blind seeing and the deaf
0:51:14 > 0:51:20hearing. This is Jesus is the understanding he had of himself, he
0:51:20 > 0:51:24thought of himself as God's Messiah whom heaven and earth will obey. How
0:51:24 > 0:51:29do you explain that self conception? Is it because he is crazy? I have
0:51:29 > 0:51:34done a lot of work in psychiatry and that does not seem plausible. Is he
0:51:34 > 0:51:40lying? You had no interest in lying...How do you know it was not
0:51:40 > 0:51:44plausible he was crazy? I am not suggesting for a second that he was,
0:51:44 > 0:51:48but you dismiss that. CS Lewis talks about this. There is no evidence he
0:51:48 > 0:51:57was crazy? What is the evidence...? I have walked... Worked with people
0:51:57 > 0:52:02who have delusions that you are Jesus.He was always driving demons
0:52:02 > 0:52:07out of people. What were they? Scholars disagree. Some people think
0:52:07 > 0:52:10it is their way of talking about mental illness when they did not
0:52:10 > 0:52:14have a strict job psychiatry, others think there are such things as
0:52:14 > 0:52:20demons. I am personally a little bit agnostic on it. There are reputable
0:52:20 > 0:52:28psychiatrist who believe in it.In Demons?There are some.
0:52:28 > 0:52:33Demons?There are some.You are a psychiatrist?Psychologist. We are
0:52:33 > 0:52:37the living embodiment here of the question, is evidence a problem for
0:52:37 > 0:52:44religions? Clearly listening to people... What is going on, it is a
0:52:44 > 0:52:47major problem, because the disagreements are so strong. One of
0:52:47 > 0:52:52the questions for me is how do you move from evidence to truth? One of
0:52:52 > 0:52:58the things I observe is that people of faith, religious people, tend to
0:52:58 > 0:53:03move quite quickly from evidence which is quite disparate to facts. I
0:53:03 > 0:53:09recently watched Miriam Margulies in America, a fascinating programme on
0:53:09 > 0:53:13the BBC where she interviewed some very fundamental people who had
0:53:13 > 0:53:18absolute religious fact, I have evidence that the Earth is only 5000
0:53:18 > 0:53:23years old.That is bonkers. I have evidence which says evolution does
0:53:23 > 0:53:31not even merit the word theory, it is so papery and thin. They have
0:53:31 > 0:53:36started with their conclusions.The problem with fundamentalists in
0:53:36 > 0:53:39different religions is they move from a very selective reading of a
0:53:39 > 0:53:46select choice of cherry picked information and say I have fact.
0:53:46 > 0:53:53Sadly we live now in a world where facts are so meaningless, so badly
0:53:53 > 0:53:56abused, we are presented, as Kelly and Conway famously said, with
0:53:56 > 0:54:04alternative truths. Most people call them lies but now you can say
0:54:04 > 0:54:09evidence, facts, it is all discredited.With you in a minute,
0:54:09 > 0:54:16Robert. Good morning.Good morning! I went to a catholic girls' School
0:54:16 > 0:54:19in Southampton and I have to say that a Catholic education is
0:54:19 > 0:54:23probably one of the most confusing things you can have. You go to your
0:54:23 > 0:54:27science class and you are told you cannot say anything unless you have
0:54:27 > 0:54:32evidence for it, you go to your history class and you are told you
0:54:32 > 0:54:36had to think is that buyers, who wrote it, why did they write it? You
0:54:36 > 0:54:42have mass, and everything you have learned in those lessons goes out
0:54:42 > 0:54:50the window. You have to believe what is there.It is a different
0:54:50 > 0:54:55evidential bar? I see, yes.There is not much space with the deeper
0:54:55 > 0:55:01truths.Robert, I know you are over there. I do not think you have
0:55:01 > 0:55:05spoken yet on the programme?I really do think that religion has
0:55:05 > 0:55:09been around for a really, really long time, there are so many
0:55:09 > 0:55:15different religions going on, and I think the evidence that has come up,
0:55:15 > 0:55:19although it might disapprove certain things and prove others, I really do
0:55:19 > 0:55:23think that belief systems that have been around for such a long time, I
0:55:23 > 0:55:26really do think that the evidence that is coming around to... I really
0:55:26 > 0:55:30do not think it will make such an impact that it will make much of a
0:55:30 > 0:55:35difference.Because they are too solidified?I think they are too set
0:55:35 > 0:55:42in stone for them to change. We had a mention of evolution and
0:55:42 > 0:55:45how it works, Francesca, it evolves under their religion is particularly
0:55:45 > 0:55:52suited to a particular environment, survival of the fittest, it survives
0:55:52 > 0:55:57and flourishes and it is all about what is happening at the time,
0:55:57 > 0:56:00whether it is useful. Protestantism and capitalism have been linked?
0:56:00 > 0:56:08Absolutely. I think... The best way to describe any kind of religion is
0:56:08 > 0:56:12to say that religion is an aspect of the sociality of what it is to be a
0:56:12 > 0:56:17human being. Even the discussion we had earlier this morning about
0:56:17 > 0:56:22gender and feminism, all of these debates are of their time in that
0:56:22 > 0:56:27particular moment, religion is the same.The goddesses should have done
0:56:27 > 0:56:33more to help themselves.They help themselves back.It is the goddess
0:56:33 > 0:56:40isfault. You did a brilliant programme on this, where did all the
0:56:40 > 0:56:47goddesses go?Monotheism emerged, we ended up with a God in Judaism and
0:56:47 > 0:56:50Christianity who is jealous and intolerant and preferred the company
0:56:50 > 0:56:56of circumcised men to his pantheon of gods and goddesses, and with the
0:56:56 > 0:57:00Protestant isolation of that particular God than the roles of the
0:57:00 > 0:57:04goddesses were almost written out of the biblical traditions. They
0:57:04 > 0:57:09re-emerge from time to time.
0:57:11 > 0:57:14re-emerge from time to time.Robert, you agree with this, in some of the
0:57:14 > 0:57:18Scriptures there is a lot of fake news, we were talking about that
0:57:18 > 0:57:22earlier?Absolutely. Archaeology is hard evidence that you can feel and
0:57:22 > 0:57:27touch. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the Temple scrolls which you know
0:57:27 > 0:57:31about, and you, Charlotte, it describes a temple 1600 qubits by
0:57:31 > 0:57:42600 cubits wide. That is a huge temple.Was there a Ark?No,
0:57:42 > 0:57:47absolutely not. The Ark of the covenant, different. The temple
0:57:47 > 0:57:53scroll, why did it give those dimensions? They are the dimensions
0:57:53 > 0:57:59of the greatest temple...Know, the temple depicted as an idealised
0:57:59 > 0:58:03temple.Why? Why other measurement is exactly the same as that of a
0:58:03 > 0:58:09Temple?I do not think they are. Canales is a something about truth,
0:58:09 > 0:58:16I was left hanging... Can I also say something about truth? The Hebrew
0:58:16 > 0:58:22Bible is a mess is not what I want to be my main code.30 seconds.The
0:58:22 > 0:58:26old Testament was written at everything went wrong and it shows
0:58:26 > 0:58:29that humans need to continue to question how they have behaved and
0:58:29 > 0:58:34what we are doing. There is no truth, we need to reflect on our
0:58:34 > 0:58:38actions.We will continue to question how we behave and reflect
0:58:38 > 0:58:39on our actions next week.
0:58:39 > 0:58:43Next week we're in Oxford, so do join us then.
0:58:43 > 0:58:44Thank you so much for watching.
0:58:44 > 0:58:52But for now, it's goodbye and have a great Sunday.