Episode 11 The Big Questions

Good morning. Welcome to The Big Questions live from Leicester. I'm

Nicky Campbell. Rowan Williams decision to stand down as

Archbishop of Canterbury in December leaves Anglicans deeply

split over saex- -- same-sex marriage and women priests. He said

some conflicts won't go away, not everybody in in the Anglican

commune or the Church of England is eager to avoid schism. So has the

Church of England reached a crossroads? We have liberal and

traditional Anglicans here to battle over the direction to take.

This week, the anti-animal testing lobby won a victory. They persuaded

ferry companies to join most airlines in refusing to transfer

live animals to the UK. Is animal questioning ever justified? This

medical researcher says drugs tested on animals, including

monkeys have saved or improved countless human lives. It's the

Spring Equinox on Tuesday. It's a time when we used to celebrate the

return of the sun and the renewal of life with tributes to the gods

and goddesses of fertility. Our last big question: Are many gods

better than one? This Hindu says having deities with different faces

gives people to choose the aspect refligs which means most to them.

Welcome everything, to The Big Questions.

APPLAUSE Well, it may be gooing to Rowan

Williams but it's not goodbye to the splits to the Church of England

and the wider Anglican commune. Here, battles are likely to

intensify over women bishops, gay priests and homosexual marriage.

The next Archbishop will have to cope with Africa's growing

religious conservatism and America's dynamic liberal change.

There are water shed moments ahead this year Rowan Williams said and

his successor will need the constitution of an ox and the skin

of a rhinoceros to deal with them. Has the Church of England reached a

crossroads? Alison Ruoff from the synod good morning. Lovely to see

you again. Thank you. It's whether to go back to traditionalism or

head towards liberalism, it's a real choice, isn't it? No, not

really. To go towards liberalism is just the wrong way totally. There's

a signpost really in the Christian religion saying the Bible, that's

the way, that's the map for every Christian. We need to stick with it.

Liberalism has failed in the United States. Those churches which are

very liberal are falling in numbers, likewise in this country and the

churches where the Bible is preached and taught and people are

living it out are growing. In the African churches for example.

Definitely but also in this country. There are churches where there are

solid biblical churches and they're growing and it's great. In Africa,

the church refuses to condemn the death penalty for homosexuality and

the it was reported yesterday the bishop of Nigeria referred to

likened homosexuals to dogs. think that's wrong. Why do you want

to have anything to do with these people? Well, I mean part of that

is perhaps cultural. I think that's totally wrong. I would stand for

the death penalty in this country for one or two things, but

certainly not for homosexuality. I think it's absolutely frightful.

But I think by and large that the churches in Africa, they say that

the Christianity in Africa is a mile wide and an inch deep. There's

a lot of truth in that. That's because of lack of biblical

teaching. But to scandalise and to go against homosexuals in that way

is completely wrong. Having said that, I'm against practising

homosexuality as many will know. And Peter, as a Christian from

Christian concern, you believe it's important that the state religion

in England returns to biblical values, you know, when it comes to

no women priests, no homosexual bishops, no gay marriage. You're

with Alison on that, aren't you? There are a lot of things that have

happened in our country lately, which have called into question the

place of the church in society. The summer riots, the financial crisis

and corruption in business and finance, same-sex marriage, all

these things. So, the church is not there to just reflect the trends of

society. It's there to be a voice. At its best, it challenges and also

brings hope. On certain issues it will challenge and on certain

issues it brings hope. It should be counter to British liberal values?

Yes, on certain issues, yes. don't buy the idea that the church

must stick to tradition. If you look back on the history of the

church, some of the traditions included supported slavery and

colonialism, it opposed votes for women. The church has changed. If

it can change on those issues, if it can accept that women have the

right to vote, why can't it change on same-sex marriage? We hear this

all the time on slavery that Christians condoned slavery. Many

of them did, they made that mistake. Who was the person who brought down

slavery? William Wilberforce. Why? Because he looked at his Bible.

Hang on. Men and women are created in the women of God. That's why he

fought for it. Don't insult the many heroic black people who fought

against slavery. APPLAUSE

We're at the crossroads a return to biblical values? I don't know what

they are exactly. What do you mean, what's the dog collar about then?

It's actually looking to the Bible to find things that are

inspirational. There are lots of things in the Bible which are not

inspirational and I wouldn't go anywhere near some of the things

written there. We use it in a way that's constructive, that is

helpful, that enables society to move forward and for the church

actually to be a realistic force in society for things that are good

and beneficial and things that need to change.

APPLAUSE Everybody in this room here is a

beneficiary of the Liberal society. The church needs to reflect, the

best there is, challenge the worst there is and actually enable people

to move forward in a creative way. How did Jesus use the Bible? He

based his life and ministry on the Bible and used it to challenge and

bring hope. And the Jewish scriptures? There wasn't a New

Testament until the end of the fourth century. We need to get a

bit real about it. Don't throw out phrases like what the Bible teaches

when there's a wealth of material there. Some of it is very helpful

and some of it actually not. are we to pick and choose? We do it

all oo the time. The people who put the Bible together pickened and

choose. -- picked and chose. In the Bible is says categorically men

must not cut the corners of their beard. You're clean shaven. You're

not obeying the Bible. Chris Sugden, you're looking exasperated. There's

a simplistic discussion going on here which I think canon David

knows better that the discussion about how the Bible is the word of

God, about how it's received as the word of God, as Peter mentioned.

Jesus received the scriptures as the word of God. Jesus spoke in his

own way to say Moses said to you, but I say to you, his words with

the word of God. Paul and his epistles. And Canon David knows

very well indeed there's a complex and sophisticated argument about

how we receive the Bible as scriptures but that the Church of

England has always received the Bible properly interpreted as

supreme in faith and conduct. Precisely Chris, properly

interpreted. We use our God given wisdom and reason, that's one of

the bench marks of the Church of England that we bring reason to

bear upon this to find what is constructive and what is helpful

for the flourishing of human life. That means respecting other people,

who we may disagree with or not like. You know Jesus actual think

changed some of the traditions. That's the other point. Kristina,

you're very supportive of gay marriage and you're supportive of

women bishops, as we know, from your stance and previous

appearances on this programme and indeed, of homosexual clergy.

They're never going to be, with respect to Alison, she's not going

to be and Chris isn't going to be and Peter isn't going to be. Isn't

it time to just wave a fond farewell to each other? Not at all.

First of all, we don't have to get back to biblical values. The

crossroad is not getting back to them. We stand on biblical values

in the Church of England. The church is not deeply divided on

women's issues. The church has for years said how much it wants women

to hold the same positions of authority in the church as men.

They say no. What I say is that, as they have accused me of following

the spirit of the age as if the Holy Spirit of God is not in our

age. Sometimes I feel our society, which don't forget, is founded on

Christian values and Christian principles, our law is founded on

Christian values, which you will find in the old and new test

yaments. We're a deeply tradition aling Christian country. Yes there

are many things we can amend and many that we ignore at our peril.

We're at exciting crossroads. Let's go forward. Let's not be so risk

averse. Let's listen to what we're guided to say and open up and be

conscious above everything of spreading the love of God and of

getting the good news of Jesus Christ out there. Alison? If we,

you're saying we're at this crossroads, if this nation wants to

remain a Christian nation and I still believe that it is, after all

70% would say they believe in the Christian God, but 70% don't go to

church. I still think that we are in real peril of this nation of

walking away from biblical truth. I say biblical truth because...

mean something different from what other people mean and we're both

Christians Alison. But you pick and mix and see certain things. I'm not

picking mixing at all. The Church of England is a broad church. It

has to encompass Chris, it has to encompass Kristina. Why? Why don't

you go your own ways? It's been like that all along. For some

reason now people have become so... You go with the Americans. You go

with the Africans. We agree on most of the important things. We agree

there is a God. We agree that God is a God of love. These things are

a given. God is a God of judgment too. You hear time and again from

the pull pits, he's a God of love, love, love and love and you forget

about the other side of his character. And that's what? The God

of judgment and justice. That's where we're in trouble. I don't go

with a schizophrenic God. That's what the Bible says. It's not me.

Actually God is either love or not love. I actually think... He is

both. The judgment comes when we come face to face with God and we

are aware of our own failings and also we understand what God

presents and that's our own built- in judgment ultimately. We all have

consciences. Yes pt The Holy Spirit works in our lives if we allow him

to. We can easily cut him out. interesting having this debate in

the way we're having it. Let's talk about animal testing, if you like.

Rather than gay priests or same-sex marriages I'm more worried about

what the Charles Kennedy is going to do than some of -- what the

Chancellor of the exchequer is going to do next week with the

budget. It's a massive issue, it's been boiling since Jeffrey John, he

was the celibate gay bishop. It's been boiling for years. It's coming

to a head and it seems to be irreconcilable. The Church of

England is the established church of this country. The head of state

must be a member of the church. The Church of England has privileges.

Its schools are state funded. It has 26 bishops uneleblgted which

sit in the House of Lords. When I hear this squabbling church I think

it should be disestablished. It's unfit to be the official church of

this country. There's no greater sop riffic than listening to the

incertainly wranglings of Anglicans. It seems clear to me that they

cannot exist past 2018 and the next great meegt. This church has to

split up. The question should be which bit are we going to carry

forward as the established church of this country. It seems so

obvious. They don't believe in any of the same things beyond the given

like we believe in God. We do. What I would say, is yes we're skwarlg

now and how unfortunate, but what people don't see along with the

great privileges that the Church of England has in being the

established church is the huge responsibilities. We're out in the

parishes, across the land day in, day out, millions of volunteers. We

give away more money than the BBC Children In Need appeal raises

every year. We are there in some of the most deprived communities and

do huge amount of good. I think it's a terrible shame that our

squabbling is getting precedence over this. But that's another thing.

We are open. We are able to squabble without a dictat coming

and shutting us down. You aren't able to squabble. You just lost the

arch bib op of Canterbury because Yes, you had your hand up.

thought we lived in a secular society and I don't see why we

should be involved in this argument over whether we have an established

religion in this country. I am an atheist, I am happy to be one. You

guys can argue about this as much as you want, but you don't need to

have a legislature that affects me as a result of that. David, you

would like, wouldn't you, you would like the opportunity down the line

somewhere, perhaps with incremental change it will come, to preside

over the marriage in a Church of a same-sex couple. Yes. Wye like to

be able to do that. APPLAUSE. recognise that the legislation

being proposed at the moment has no impact upon the Church and the

Church will have to make up its own mind through processes, the the

Church of England t may well come to a position it may open up gay

marriage. But it will go through due process. If and when that

happens and certainly who would have thought either of you, Chris

or Alice, who would have thought we would have 20 years ago civil

partnerships. You are right. when that happens will you - could

you possibly be part of the same Church that allows that?

absolutely not. You may not have a choice... I will have a choice.

Because I will walk away from the Church of England. You will have to

perhaps because what's going to happen as soon as this hits the

statue books is human rights law is going to be invoked by campaigners

to try and force all churches, not just the Anglicans, but Catholics

and imams as well to perform gay gay marriages and that's going to

open up the most terrific war between gays and churches and

that's what worries me about it, when you get imams being told

according to human rights law they must perform gay marriages if

they're asked then you are going to see a war and the Government will

have a big problem. The Government has made it quite clear that the

proposals for same-sex marriages apply only in civil ceremonies in

register offices, they will have no impact on religious institutions.

That's not the way the law works. There will be no successful legal

challenge to that because, for example, the Roman Catholic Church

forbids divorce and even though divorce is lawful in a civil court

there's never been a successful challenge or anybody trying to

challenge the Catholic Church as right to deny rights on divorce.

don't think you can say that with much certainty as you are. Chris,

the situation which pertains at present that you can be a clergyman,

but if you are gay, if you have those inclinations but you must be

sell -- celibate. Is that not an invitation to dishonesty, perhaps

hypocrisy? There have always been people with same-sex inclinations

in the Church. The Christian teaching has always been that

marriage is between a man and a woman for life, and that

faithfulness should be between those two people. Any sexual

behaviour, whether heterosexual or homosexual, outside that... Outside

marriage? This sounds like an argument for same-sex marriage

perhaps. Marriage between a man and woman as given in the script tures,

is against God's will and purpose and best for human flourishing and

is not only a doctrine, it is proved by experience. But I would

like to address some of the oppositions of this discussion. A

secular society, what do you mean by that? Do you mean a society in

which those with religious convictions have no contribution to

make? I am looking at the at the gentleman who raised the issue or

do you mean a society where all contributions to the discussion of

the public good are welcome, including religious ones? I hope

you mean the latter, because if you mean the former we are into

dictation by the state and it's precisely that issue on which the

Church has stood for centuries. The Earl kreu kreu -- early Christians

were faced with a Roman culture which said it's going to be good if

we bind everybody together. Christians went to the lions and

the stake because they said no to that and we have to be discerning

about what the holy spirit says, we have to be discerning about our

culture, and that is where the only reliable source in terms of the

Church of England teaching is the bible as interpreted. Peter, this

issue about being able to be a bishop, for example, but celibate,

is that an invitation to dishonesty and hypocrisy? Absolutely. The fact

the Church will not face the reality that probably a third of

Anglican priests and probably 40% of Catholic priests are homosexual,

that is a huge massive self-denial. Where do you get statistics?

Different surveys by organisations working within the Church, in the

United States, here, Australia. Figures are all much the same.

There is huge dishonesty. I think, you know, the reality is that those

clergy, gay or straight, provide ministry, they should be accepted

for who they are. If they're in a loving long-term same-sex

relationship, I don't see any fundamental moral reasons why

churches should not accept them because churches are supposed to be

about the value validation of love and commitment. These exchanges

have been interesting but also painful for me, if Christianity is

at a crossroads, which way are you going to turn and whatever

shortcomings the Anglican community worldwide or Church of England have

there are so many pluses about you and at times I wish we as Muslims

could unify our ranks the way you have managed over centuries and the

good that the Christians have done for this world and continue to do

for today is something to be rejoiced and celebrated. Just

reflect on the relationships that other faith communities in this

country enjoy with the Christian community under the leadership of

the Archbishop and others before him. It's fantastic. It's a signal

to the world that we do not need to be at each other's throats. You

have your differences, we agree to disagree and hold hands and move

along and do good for humanity. That is where the strength of

Christians lies and I have seen it in my short exposure to

Christianity, that you guys are really good at taking care...

we heard from the next Archbishop! But then... That's gracious of you.

You will leave the Church if Kristina and David have their way.

Only if they're forced out, this is the iraou. No someone going to

force you out. Who would force you out? Liberalism plus, plus. Hold on.

We are face ago vote in July, a General Synod on consecration of

women. There is a big issue at the moment as to whether people who for

theological reasons cannot accept that. Women bishops you mean.

remain in the Church of England with security, rather than in a

sort of condescending way at other people's pleasure. That's the big

issue. That's an issue the House of Bishops is looking at and my

concern is that on this matter, as on other matters, what we are

facing with is incrementalism. Peter... Can I jump in. Can I

finish. Peter has said no way will the Church be forced to celebrate

gay marriages unless it wanted - we were told in 2005 when the civil

partnerships act, that no way is this gay marriage, no way will the

Church be required to do this. Now we have that they can be... Before

the election in May 2010 Conservatives released contract of

equalities saying they were going to do this. I don't think you will

find in any of the election manifestoes that... Seven days

before the election. It said this will be something they will be

considering and then the Prime Minister actually publicly stated

this is what he wanted to do. Unlike as is usually the case with

Green Papers and White Papers and a genuine consultation, the

consultation over gay marriage is only one in name because the

decisions are already been made, this is a consultation about how to

implement it, not whether to do it. It's been raced through because the

decision has been made. We will see about that. Let's skate back to

women bishops. Half the human race after all, women bishops has been

on the agenda of General Synod for over 30 years. It was nearly passed

in a debate in 1978. It fell narrowly in one House, then it was

the House of Clergy. We have debated this ad nauseum and the

people in the pews want women to have the same opportunity and no

one, let me just say this, absolutely categorically, no one is

forcing anyone out. The only way you can stay in is to not walk out.

In terms of talking about security, what are we talking about? Security

from holy women? It's insulting this type of talk. There are so

many safeguards built in already into the code of practice and to -

Chris is talking about is wanting to put into legislation itself

something that distinguishes against bishops on the basis of

whether they're male and female. And that is not only discriminatory,

it's offensive. To the audience. alarms me that we are talking about

whether we want this to go left or right, this shouldn't be political.

This is your faith, this is not something that you want people to

ballot on. You need to make the decision amongst yourselves is what

I am saying. That would be nice. Yes, Sir here. I think the question

is about who is the Church for, if it's for the people it should

listen to the people. Or else it becomes a self-preservation society.

It must listen to God and the Bible, not the people. How does God speak,

through people. He speaks through his word. Actually Jesus. That's

the usual mistake people make, they confuse the word in the form of

Jesus with words about him. Jesus was the woed made -- word made

flesh. The Bible is God's word in its entirity. The life and

teachings and what Jesus did is preeminent in the Christian faith

absolutely, and of course I am as pweubl biblically based as you are

Alison. That's a matter of opinion. No, it's a matter of fact.

gentleman here and the suit of the morning! I think the Church should

be guided by the word of God. What is sin should remain sin. We can't

change God, can't change the word of God. We should remember that

there are examples in the word of God, They tried to change God's

view on sin and there were consequences, what this nation

needs is that revival. Alison talked about... More judgment?

Judgmental God. People need to know what God says and what God expects

from people. We can't try to change the word and try to say same-sex

relationship, God says it's OK. are not looking happy. God speaks

through loving God-like lives and we can witness those, we can

evidence them. We can experience them. We don't need a book that we

use as a weapon. We need to be able to experience how tkpod actually --

God actually axe in the world -- acts in the world today with all

the issues we have to face. Let's pray you find some compromise

position and it all ends well. Or proceeds well for you. Thank you

very much indeed for taking part in that debate.

If would you like to have your say about that one, please log on to

our website and you will find ways to continue the discussions online.

We are also debating live this morning from the Samworth

Enterprise Academy in Leicester, is animal testing ever justified? And

are many gods better than one? Tell us what you think about those

topics and send us your ideas for future debates or comments you

would like to make about the programme.

Nobody likes the idea of animals suffering in the name of beauty to

test cosmetics but it's hard tore condemn scientists -- harder to

condemn scientists who have used animals to research cures for

Alzheimer's or a srabg even against malaria or to develop life support

systems to help premature babies to survive. Is animal testing ever

justified? We have Professor John Stein from Oxford Functional

Neurosurgery group. You have done pioneering research on Parkinson's,

haven't you, which has involved animal testing and testing on

monkeys. Primates. How did you feel about that? Like the majority of

people in this country I believe that animal testing is justified

for the improvement of medicines and treatments and what I have done

with primates I am proud of, because it has led to many, many

thousands of people being improved in their lives, not just with

Parkinsons, but work I did in monkeys, understanding how they

move their eyes, has helped me to understand children with reading

disorders. And what was done to the monkeys to facilitate you getting

that information about how children read? I was cooling a part of the

brain, not painful at all, in order to cease the functioning

temporarily of part of the brain that we know in humans is important

for reading. What that did was to change the way in which the animals

moved their eyes from that we could deduce things about how children

learn to read, the way they move For how long? For about half an

hour. The rest of the time they were in gang cages playing with

their mates. If there weren't the moral qualms about the higher prime

Yates. Which we don't use at all. Would you if you could? No. Why do

you draw the line? Because I think we have to have a regard to the

level of intelligence of the monkeys to try and decide whether

or not they are undergoing any sufferinging. At what point is it

unacceptable, orangutans? All great apes are out of the question, I

think. That is enshrined in law, as you know. If it weren't enshrined

in law, I was investigating the principle. Would put a caveat on

that. If it were shown to be the case that a particular very, very

killing disease could only be modelled in great apes, and people

were dying in thousands, then I would relax that prohibition.

you? Yes, because in that case, if I could be reasonably sure of

developing a cure for a disease that was killing thousands of

people, then that would trump, as it were, my worries about the

cognitive state of the ape. That's a very, very unlikely situation.

Your argument is a utilitarian one. That some suffering is justified

for the greater good. I didn't say anything about suffering. There is

a problem here. People think the animals suffer. In all the

experiments I do - There's no question about whether animals

suffer. It's concerning that that people who dot skpairpts seem to

deny that. All the experiments we do are done, if we're at all

invasive and by the way, 95% of experiments are genetic

modification experiments so they don't involve any sort of invasive

activity, but if we are going to be invasive, all the surge vi done

under anaesthetic, under close supervision than many human

operations in fact. When we put this cooling plate on the pain, the

brain has no pain receptors and therefore it is not painful. If it

were, the monkey would not do the kinds of things that we train them

to do, like tracking a moving target with their arm. They enjoy

the game, just as children enjoy video games. How can you say that?

They cannot be said to be suffering. The problem is how can you say

they're enjoying it, when they don't have a voice? My question

regarding experiment with the vision and the monkeys, keeping

their eyes open... Not keeping their eyes open. They were just

normal monkeys. Why not use MEG, a brain scanner that is able, without

using animals at all, to gauge vision, cog any sans, all sorts of

things that do with the brain. That is available now?

APPLAUSE We also use MEG scanners, we use

FMRI, many techniques that some people say could dispense with the

need to use monkeys. However, none of those techniques can match the

complexity of the brain. I don't agree. Have you spoke ton Professor

Furlon as the Aston brain centre? He can explain quite a lot. There's

a lot of things you can do with MEG than with other things, so less

experiments will be necessary. As we go on, more and more techniques

will be available. There's another technique which has been spoken

about on the radio this week, which was a case, not yours, but monkeys

having their skulls opened and their eyes forced open for five

days, that was in the name of general research, finding out the

effect of light on the eyes. Does that bother you Tom? So long as all

the refinement techniques, enrichment techniques are there to

ensure animal suffering is minimised wherever it may exist. I

do accept there is certainly going to be some level of discomfort to

animals. I think we have a duty to ensure that animal welfare is

prioritised. I agree. We have an even greater priority to ensure

that we allow people around to have the treatments tomorrow so that

people aren't dying of cancer. So that people aren't dying of HIV.

There are so many diseases which are scourges on humanity and we

have a chance and a duty to try to prevent them. Most of the disease

that's are scourges, most of the things that people die prematurely

of are things we can already cure. People die for the want of mosquito

nets that will prevent them suffering malairya. As a society

we're turning away from that. We're not doing all we can to stop human

suffering. Yet somehow we're saying we have a moral obligation to

inflict others on animals. Give us an idea of the stress you believe

they suffer Alastair? Well, the range is enormous. It is very

disturbing to hear a suggestion they don't suffer. For instance,

some of the animals not being transported into this country

because of this story, are mice genetically engineered to develop

cancer. I think everyone with any moral sense whatsoever feels a

sense of revulsion, what can it possibly be other than wrong to

create a being that can suffer pain in the same way as we do, we do

pain research on animals and inflict that suffering upon it.

have been talking about brains, but I would say it's a no brainer that

we can use animals in order to serve, to find an end to human

suffering. All animals? No, no, but what Professor Stein is right.

draw the line. Listen to his hesitancy for crossing the line

with using great apes and only for great reluctance. My mother died of

severe Parkinson's, I promise you, if I could have helped her not to

suffer for the last 20 years of her life and I hope that we get right

perspective on this. The animals that are used for pre-clinical

trials, that means so that you and I don't ever have to enter a trial

on it. When clinical trials are made on human beings, there's a

chance that they even could suffer. But a much less chance thanks to

the pre-clinical trials done on rats and mice and monkeys. And I'm

all for. It I'm grateful Professor Stein is here to talk about it and

show that it's acceptable. Peter, why do you think this is not our

right as a species? First of all, we humans are animals. To suggest

there's some great gulf between us and other animals is nonsense. Of

course, we are more civilised and cultured and greater intellectual

compassities. But we are part of the animal kingdom. Other animals

have sent yepbs. They feel pain and suffering. They have basic emotions,

cognisance. To treat them as objects for our benefit is morally

wrong and the argument for the other side... Are you vegetarian?

The argument the other side is that suffering is justified for the

greater good. The logic of that is that we should then experiment on

humans, because humans should be sacrificed for the greater good. I

don't believe that for one moment. There's a lady there, you've had

your hand up for a long time. have an issue to take up with you.

You say there's no suffer on the experiments you carry out on their

monkeys. From the moment they are ripped from the wild - By the way...

The suffering begins. They are injured in the process. Many of

them even die in the transportation process, which can last up to 56

hours. And by the time they arrive here they have suffered enough

before the experiments that you deliberately and intentionally

inflict upon these creatures begins. All the monkeys I use are

actually... You deny akstos fresh water. You deny -- access to fresh

water. These animals are bred here, not ripped from the jungles. Bred

in cages. Social animals denied their natural habitat. OK, Tom's

going to give us some perspective. This is less than one in 1,000

animals is a monkey used in research. 95% are mice, rats, fish

and birds. Many of which we would find on our dinner plate or in a

trap. If you believe that animal suffering is the most important

thing, why is it that you are not campaigning against the millions,

hundreds of millions of animals that we eat? Can I just say, Peter

you are starting to sound as though you're coming from a Pagan

perspective with the moral notion that animals have a spiritual

existence as well. I agree with that completely. That's right.

That's something we aren't considering enough, there's an

ethical point in a matter of belief as well as a social point about the

way we experiment on animals. There's a morality that needs to be

considered on a wider level. Scientifically as well, looking at

the facts, the animal model is flawed. There are hundreds of

scientists from top universities around the world who say that the

animal model is flawed. I'd also say that using animals as well is

also economically more expensive. Our taxes are actually paying for

failures. Nine out of ten drugs tested on animals successfully,

fail in humans. This is a very important point. John, could you do,

could you have made the advances without animals? No, I could not

have done so. We also use slide rules for years. Now we're using

computers. Without being able to experiment on monkeys I would not

have been able to find the part of the brain that we have found that

when we stimulate it, we can reduce many of the symptoms of Parkinson's

disease, which are otherwise incurable. I think that's an

advance we should be proud of and it's because of the sacrifice of

something like five monkeys. Now I think that is worthwhile, if we

care about our human brethren more than we do about animals. What

would you like to say? Good morning. Good morning. It is completely

acceptable when people say that animal testing is not a good thing

to do. Because it is a cruelty towards animals. But we also have

to think that considering as a human race and it was rightly said

that we also are animals, why are we putting them, doing all that and

why are we doing testing on them? But if you're saying that as a

science we need to proceed further, we can just give the medicines as

they are. They have to grow. When the science is growing, when the

technology is growing, when we discover new medicines, why is no

human coming ahead and if we can sign a consent, sign it and say do

testing on me. No-one is ready to do that.

We haven't heard from you Sir. think it's unacceptable initially

to think that somehow animals don't have the same level of pain and

suffering emotionally and physically in the same way we do.

Why is it acceptable to allow one animal to suffer so that we can

live? We are all animals. Why is our health any more important than

the animals. I would suggest that the pain the animals suffer is very

likely to be much more than the pain the human being suffer because

the animals live at the level of the senses. Their senses are highly

accentuated. Pain they feel may be much more perhaps than we can

imagine. We need to be very careful. In days past, we were doing

experiments on human beings, in the lower wrungs of society n. Days to

come, I think we with will see animal experimentation as a

barbaric idea. As intelligent civilised people we

have a moral duty towards vulnerable animals. They can't

speak for themselves. We have a duty to protect them. It's a duty

of moral stewardship of fellow animals. Chris? I'm glad that word

stewardship has been introduced. It comes directly out of the Bible,

where God gives the stewardship for the creation, including the animals

for shepherdly care in the hands of human beings and that is the basis

on which we can assert properly, with humility that there is a

priority as the professor said in our accountability and sponts. When

you take God out of equation, you end up with these inevitable,

unresolvable conflicts. Where we would be without unresolvable

conflicts on a Sunday? If you look at all the great moral problems,

great suffering, they tend to rely on the notion that the suffering of

others is somehow less important than the suffering of me or those I

care about or others. Suffering is suffering. It doesn't matter who is

suffering. We have a duty not to impose it on anyone or anything.

Sorry, last word. I must say something, when I spoke to somebody

on Five Live about this during the week, a geneticist, I said

experiments on dogs. He said yes, but it's not your dog, Nicky. I

thought that was a moral abrogaigs. It's like seeing a child starving

in Ethiopia. It's not my child, John, it's still suffering. I want

to talk about the suffering, because one of the problems that is

occurring because of the effective ban on transport of animals that

has been achieved, I'm afraid to say by activists, is that the

animals suffer more in two ways. One, because they can't take the

easiest and quickest and most, least suffering route to wherever

they're going to be transported because these experiments will take

place. And also, they take place in countries that don't care about

animal suffering as much as I do. Thank you all very much indeed. If

you have views about that debate, log onto bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions.

Send us your views. Are many gods better than one? If you'd like to

be in the show e-mail [email protected]. We're in

Birmingham next week, Bury April The classical Romans and Greeks had

gods and goddesses for every aspect of life, the an seupbt Hindu

religion tells tales of the exploits of many deities which

still bear lessons for believers today. But Christians, Jews,

Muslims are required to believe in one God. Are Are many gods better -

good morning again, how are you. Many gods better than one, Hinduism

is an interesting religion, been reading about it a lot. Very

complex, very flexible and many people believe many different

things. Indeed. But some of whom believe in many gods and goddesses.

Hindus sometimes misunderstood, - this is a contradiction in terms,

you can't have more than one ultimate. Hinduism has never never

has always been a very mature, pluralistic tradition. Not many

gods, but many ways to relate to the idea of spirituality, it can

incorporate monothism. This is spiritual democracy and the lovely

word is religious pluralism. Many parts of exploring spirituality.

There is one ultimate supreme being? Not being, essentially

spiritual rather than material, that manifests itself different

layers. Man, God and universe is very artificial, it is time we

demolished this... Is this the way out for the Church of England out

of their problems? Earlier on they were talking about different gods.

I was thinking gosh perhaps I am a Hindu! Intra faith dialogue. This

is the way you relate to spirituality. Different ways of

relating. So the supreme power and different ways of seeing that

supreme power, it has many different faces. Indeed. Brahma,

Vishnu. In a way this gives freedom for different people, depending on

their own temperament to relate to idea of spirituality suited to

their temperament. Some are goddesses too. Why should God

always be father. Ashley is - you are a pagan belief and a witch as

well. Yes, I am. It's not a problem. That's all right. On a Sunday

morning. Lots of gods and goddesses. Can I distinguish between

witchcraft and paganism, witch craft is a religion, paganism is an

umbrella term for different beliefs and religion. Paganism is the

belief all things are part of the natural world and aspects of that

natural world have a non-physical part of their being through which

they're connected. Life force is mother earth sort of thing. That's

true and we are all related and connected through our non-physical

being. Whereas a religion is a set of practices designed to follow a

particular path. Paganism encompasses a variety. If there is

a fundamental reality as Jay says, underlining reality it's possible.

Because of that then possibly by approaching divinity from different

angles and personifying it in different ways one is personifying

the same same divinity. One of the advantages of - one of the

disadvantages of pure unadulterated monotheism? It creates - you can

have aLiege kwrepbs to one supreme personality. Other religion is

people of no religion. It also creates intra-faith - what's

written in the book is you can't integrate it then you are in

trouble. I thought you two might come in here. I have the great

privilege of living in India for six years and I dialogued with many

Hindu leaders. The problem is this, that yes about one ultimate reality,

which means this world is a total illusion T also mean that is

certain people are born to a certain level of life and certain

people are born to another level of life and that's justified.

caste system. That means over a third of India's population of a

billion are regarded as communicable social diseases such

that if I was a low caste person and my shadow felt on you, you

would have to go and ritually wash yourself in order to continue to

take part in society. Now, unfortunately, Hinduism went

through a rennaissance, as a result of its engagement with Christianity

in the 19th century. One of those who was a product of that was

Gandhi and Gandhi led the move for democracyisation, especially of the

lower caste system. But I believe this becomes angels on the head of

a pin argument when it's divorced from the reality of the experience

of this system for a huge tphplt of people -- number of people. Is that

because of the religion or because of cultural? This idea - hire arc

alcaste system is same as saying Christianity is idea of - name of

religion cannot be used in order to this marvellous broad vision of

Hinduism. Vilifying Hinduism. live in a society with many gods.

They're called mobile gods, iPods, flash cars, bankers' bonuses, these

are the gods that prevail in our society at the moment. Some people

would criticise Christianity for having three gods. The Holy Trinity.

I think the real issue is actually how different faiths actually

interact and work together for the common God. We heard in your

discussions with our friends there with Chris and Alison, it was like

hearing about different gods. is precisely the point... You were

talking love and she was talking love but also judgment. There are

different interpretations and we move forward in different ways and

that's why I believe the Christian Church should have the profoundest

of respect for other faith traditions and recognise that they

experience God, ultimate reality, whatever words we use through their

own particular traditions and humanism as well. And it's

important that we make that recognition and not think that one

particular religion trumps every other religion. Christianity sees

God through the person of Jesus but we should... From a religious

leader, that's the most absurd thing to hear from a religious lead

they're we shouldn't think that one religion trumps the others.

Obviously you have no interest in whether Christianity has a claim to

truth or not. That seems ridiculous. You are Catholic, aren't you?

Catholicism think the Virgin Mary is a quasi-Goddess in one way.

like the idea of boy of -- polytheish. When you can structure

your belief systems as you go through life according to your

preferences, my worry with is there is you are selecting your gods and

you are choosing your religion rather than the other way around

and I am really horrified by statements like this, that religion

- religion should not aspire to talk about the truth t should

simply try to do good with everybody it can. It seems...

are We are scratching the surface of the truth. I want to challenge

on the idea of that f you believe in one God somehow it's going to

make you a horrible intolerant fanatical person I don't agree with

that, you have made an example of intra faith, imagine an intra God.

Chaos all over the world. All the gods and goddesses. I am suggesting,

most thinkers of recent times pointed the finger at monotheism.

Always pointed finger at monotheism for producing fan fan -- fanatic

behaviour. I don't think that any of us can say we are not, but what

excites me is to hear what you say is there has to be one ultimate

reality, and that you say that we are connected in a non-physical way,

all of life, because that's what Christians believe. I believe we

are connected but I all our connection the holy spirit and I

think everything that exists, everything that exists animals

people, everything is enlivened and here because of the Holy Spirit.

you pray to God or Jesus? I pray to - I have one God and it's like a

finely cut crystal, will never exhaust the infinitude of the

divine and I come through Jesus. Peter. Can we talk about the

greatest monotheist existed if you like, Jesus, and what kind of

behaviour did that produce? Did he kill people? No, he laid down his

own life for his people. There's no other God that's laid down his life

for his people. That's the behaviour, service and sself-

sacrifice. Any spiritual - idea of spirituality geared for society it

was living in, the Met afor, language used was suited to that

time to those people, not necessarily for the modern secular

society and this ability to move forward and evolve with the times

and recognise the deeper idea of religion which is at the spiritual

level is the way forward. I am promoting spiritual humanism in

contrast to any religion. Peter wants to come in. Far from taking

the view that many gods are better than one, I would say that no God

is better than any God. I absolutely respect and defend

people of faith who are being persecuted, I work to help support

Christians in Pakistan being persecuted, Sunni Musliming in Iran

-- Muslims in Iran. But I think that reason, rationale argument,

scientific knowledge is a better way to understand the world than

the superstition of religion. Ashley. I don't believe in

superstition, we are all part of a natural world, therefore there's no

supernatural. What I have noticed here is that we are dealing with

the difference between spirituality and religion and Jay is talking

about spirituality even from the perspective of a religion and

myself in the same way. Let me also say what we have been talking about

earlier is moral and ethical issues and whether the state gets involved

in what people do as well as what they believe and maybe religions

and spiritual people might think about stepping back and dealing

with what people believe, rather than the way they act upon those

beliefs and we can all have a discussion about the whole thing.

Determined behaviour, beliefs should determine behaviour.

believe the only way to eternal life is through Jesus Christ,

millions of people are condemned to what if they don't believe in

Jesus? They're condemned to eternal death, punishment from God, that's

what the Bible teaches. That is the love of God. That ultimate reality

is somehow responsible for everything that is, it's pretty

mean thing to actually do that, I think. That's why, I think - it's a

both, not either or. I lived in India for a year, it was

fascinating to see the various gods and when you came to the

celebrations the goddesses for example, the goddesses of death,

you see people take down tree, make a God and have loads of smoke, you

almost see because of all the people and the working up the

people that the thing can move, after that what do they do with the

God, it's chucked in the river. What's the difference between body

and blood of Christ? I believe that's done in remembrance of the

death and passion. Another religion in order to score points for own

religion is not going to work in modern day and times, it's

necessary to look at the deep are ideas of religion and not threw out

the baby with the bath water and hanging on to idea of spirituality

and I am promoting spiritual humanism is the way forward. Thank