Episode 17 The Big Questions

APPLAUSE And good morning. We are at Leith Academy, I am Nicky

Campbell. Britain is gearing up to host the G8 summit again. When it

was held at Gleneagles eight years ago, the rich nations committed to

spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid by 2015. This week, the coalition

Government went back on the promise to cement that in law. The first

question, should governments pledge a percentage to foreign aid? The

astonishing events in Cleveland, Ohio, on Monday when three women

escaped from a decade of abuse in an ordinary suburban house gave

pause for thought. If that happen next door to you, would you have

then? Would you have done anything about it? Should you mind your

neighbour's Business? First day was Ascension Day, marking when Jesus

rose to heaven, completing mankind's redemption. Do humans

need the idea of heaven? Welcome to The Big Questions.

Three years ago today, David Cameron and Nick Clegg signed the

coalition agreement. One aim was to spend 0.7% of gross national income

on foreign aid as pledged at Gleneagles by Tony Blair and other

leaders. That was supposed to be set in statute. But it was left out

of the Queen's Speech. Should governments pledge a percentage to

foreign aid? Seven out of ten people think we spend too much on

foreign aid, there seems to be a growing scepticism. Is that the

space? We are one of the wealthiest countries. The amount we spend is

not enormous. 70 pence in every �100. If you earn �20,000, �52 goes

towards international development. -- �25,000. That is the average

wage. I think that is reasonable. What do you say to those who argue

against it? Those who say it would be better done by the private

sector. The aid programme is well managed and respected around the

world. There is a moral obligation. There is an international

obligation to which we signed up at Gleneagles. The issue is whether we

should go back on what we signed up to, even though it was endorsed by

all three political parties. The bottom line is this, it is in our

national self-interest. If you are interested in stopping the flow of

migrants and asylum seekers into the UK, or reducing it, and

interestingly, most of the people who want to stop foreign aid are

also against foreigners coming here, if that is what you want to do, it

makes sense to stabilise the countries from which they are

coming. One of the biggest recipients of international aid

will be Somalia. This is a country that is integrated and gave rise to

terrorism, piracy and huge numbers of refugees. Hundreds of thousands

are here and in other countries. It is in the national interest. You

cannot build a fortress around Europe and say we are not

interested. Taking that in reverse order, in

the past 15 years we have spent more on foreign aid and there have

been more immigrants. Age does not work. $300 billion spent on foreign

aid from 1970 -- foreign aid does not work. It does not work, it

creates dependency. It undermines local business and economy is that

are thriving. What foreign aid is poor people in rich countries

paying for rich people in poor countries. A lot of the money and

sup in bank accounts of African dictators in Switzerland. -- it

ends up. It is all very well for a minister who do not pay all that

much tax. But for people... There is something in Scotland, a trust

that the year before last had to feed 5000 starving children in

Scotland. Last year, it had to beat 14,000. There are many problems

domestically we have not solved. That is an important point. It is a

moral issue. Some of your neighbours in Scotland have the

lowest life-expectancy rates. church of Scotland has been

involved in food banks. That is not the point when you give up on those

are -- who are even poorest. It works out at 37p per day at most

for international aid per head. I am concerned with the struggle

young people have in Scotland and with people ending up at food banks.

But I note that a great deal of foreign aid works on the ground and

saves lives. I am concerned about poverty here, and the troubles with

the health service, but if the money can save lives, I want to

continue paying it. It is money well spent. You will comparison is

wrong. 70% -- when you say 70p, that is if you are a taxpayer, if

you do not earn money, and you have nothing. He will help you? Send

money abroad, foster development, create a market and new business

partners. If you want to help the world, there is nothing wrong with

compassion, you deal with it by fighting agricultural subsidies in

Europe and America. You deal with the right investment policy that

gets business going. You do not throw money at people that you have

no accountability where the money goes. There is no system in the UK

dealing with where the foreign aid is going and reviewing it to see if

it is causing growth. We have cut aid to South Africa by 19 billion.

Jacob Zuma's new compound cost 20 million and that annoys people.

said we are not giving any more to South Africa because it is

potentially a rich country. That is wrong, we have just cut it. We will

stop spending 90 million in 2015. - 19 million. None of it goes to

African dictators. In countries that are unstable you would not

hand money over to a government, you would spend it through

organisations working on the ground. It does not gain a dictator's' bank

accounts. A lot of it is spent on vaccination of children. 55 million.

Also on combating malaria. And on prevention of Aids. I quite agree

with the point that the ideal is not to make people dependent. It is

to create functioning economy is and market economies. You cannot

begin to do that if your population is laid to waste by malaria and

Aids. You have to get infrastructure? I agree in those

areas the programme works. But it makes no sense to have not 0.7% as

a target. -- to have 0.7%. The needs of the country is that

receive aid will change. By next year, we will spend more on

international aid than we well on frontline policing. Most people

would think we have our -- our priorities wrong. C M 25% of the

world wealth -- 75% of the wealth of the world is held by a minority.

1.2 billion live on less than $1 a day. We need to make sure we share

it so that lives are saved. We would want to happen were we in

that situation. Almost every government department is reducing

its budget. Does that not make you proud? Do we need more customers

for our growth? The if you talk about linking trade and foreign aid,

we should not use it in that way. If you develop a country they will

need things. Whenever a department is reducing the budget and every

taxpayer is reducing their budget, it is wrong for foreign aid to be

increased. You are encouraging dependency. People say we are

spending too much and I would say we are not spending enough. Sweden

spends 1.5%. Luxembourg Spence double our percentage. --

Luxembourg spending 1.04 per cent. The 6th richest country in the

world and we have food banks. Instead of the Government giving

tax breaks to wealthy people, taking care of business and wealthy

people, collect the �120 billion of tax that is avoided and evaded and

we could give more foreign aid and make sure ordinary people here live

a decent lifestyle. Somebody from taxpayers Scotland talking against

foreign aid. I did not notice comments from organisations such as

them on willingness to spend money on the funeral of Margaret Thatcher.

Have they been speaking against Trident and the billions spent on

that. We will talk about foreign aid. Do you understand the

resentment some people have? Some people say we are the sixth biggest

economy in the world. Some people say we are the 10th. Why do we give

aid to the 11th, India? We are not planning to give foreign aid to the

Indian government, it is to the Indian people. There are countries

where they have rich people but they do not have the infrastructure

to look after their own poor people. I believe in giving money to help

to raise living standards and opportunities of people in the

developing world. It is ridiculous to say we will tie the hands of

future government about how much to spend. We should spend money to

promote development. We should aim to not have to spend that money for

very long. If it works, we should not spend the money again. The idea

that you have to fix an arbitrary figure in law strikes me as

ridiculous. It is not to say we should not be doing everything

possible, even at a time when we have less, to help those worse off.

Should we give money to countries that a press women and execute

homosexuals? You have been reading the Daily Express newspaper! We do

not give it to the governments concerned. It is about people.

India contains more poor people than a whole of sub-Saharan Africa.

The biggest conglomeration of poor people on the planet. We do not

give it to the Indian government. We spend it often through

organisations, some time state governments to take an interest.

Pakistan gets a lot of money from us. Pakistan has serious problems,

and they are not all of its own making. They have up to 4 million

to people and not governments? If we think about this in terms of

state to state transfers, that is the wrong road.

After the report, it was about aspiration at that time, pushing

levels up from 0.3% of spending in the OECD, and it becomes politically

fossilised almost. It becomes a mantra. But, the important...

Politically and culturally. Physically, very close. The

important thing we have got here, is that if we actually start looking at

private, non-governmental institutions. The really big

institutions that can do this partnership effectively are the

religious organisations. I can see Philippa wants to come in

straightaway. I would love to take you to our work

in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The worst place to be a woman.

A hard country to live in. The churches are there were no other NGO

can get in. For example, we trained 27 surgeons in a place the size of

Scotland where previously there was only one, who can help women after

they had been raped. Women went for ten years without being able to walk

probably. -- properly. They can now get legal advice to take the

perpetrators to court. Psychotherapy, counselling, starting

small businesses. Our money makes a big difference?

You are in a country where a child born of rape does not legally exist

things are streets ahead from many years ago.

This is a crucial point. Actually, aid spending is one of the few areas

where the British government is good at getting people who are better at

doing things, to do those things. Actually, using non-governmental

institutions, people who have a level of expertise but are not

involved in the state, to try to raise people 's living standards,

raised peoples opportunities, it is something we do very well.

The British government can't get dealing with poverty correctly in

this country, I don't want to believe in any sense of the world --

word it can do so overseas. I think it feels wonderful we can go around

the world curing people but we have to be realistic about the

limitations and make sure we get our own domestic affairs right first,

which we haven't done. Good morning. Let's cast our minds

back to 2005 when the G8 and Bob Geldof were in Scotland. The whole

objective was to make poverty history. To this day, I know it's

only been eight years, but poverty still exists. I have to say the

gentleman on the opposite side is correct. The money needs to go to

the correct places. The problem with this 0.7% pledge, it is all good we

are giving money, showing we care, but the money needs to go to the

right places. It needs to go to Infrastructure.

Absolutely. But not to dictators who abuse that money.

It is too easy to say, that is a bad guy. It is not the case. The vast

majority of the money goes as we heard from Philippa.

Just think about the people. You don't walk away from the people,

all the more reason to go in there to get organisations who can make

the difference. We also have an NGO, and their motto

is to give help where help is needed. That charity, that

compassion, it is the people, not only people, our planet, our

animals. People everywhere in the world. It is not a matter of

geography. I agree with the lady at the back who said, if we distributed

our wealth more fairly, there is enough for everyone. The problem is

the top few percentage, I am talking about people like bankers who award

themselves huge bonuses, it is so completely unfair, how can that be a

fair society. There is enough if it is fairly distributed. You can't

just do it any old how but with intelligence and respect as well as

compassion. And you very much. The last word?

0.7% is an arbitrary number. We have to set our stall as a nation. We

have poverty under control as a nation. In 1990, 40% of people lived

below $1 a day, today, it is half that. The idea it does not affect

poverty is false. What we have to do is make sure it goes to

organisations who work for people, interpersonal charities. This

Friday, my sermon was about eight. It seems distant but it is saving

people's lives -- aid. When people hear it I am from Pakistan, they

open up. The Muslims in the subcontinent in the 20s, sent a two

turkey, and that has remained in the Turkish psyche to this day. We have

a triple-A status in our credit rating but that will come down. When

it comes down... Wants it false, you need friends. Other countries are

coming up, we are not. At the end of the day, you are giving now, you

will receive in the future. Thank you all very much.

If you have something to say about that debate, log on to:

bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions. And follow the link to where you can

join in the discussion online. Or contribute on Twitter. This We're

also debating live this morning from Edinburgh: Should you mind your

neighbour's business? And: Do humans need the idea of

heaven? Tell us what you think about those

topics, or send any general comments you'd like to make about the

programme. Is Ariel Castro, a former school bus driver, has been charged

with abducting and raping Michelle Knight since 2002, Amanda Berry

since 2003. And Gina DeJesus since 2004. A child

was born to Amanda during her imprisonment. And Michelle suffered

five miscarriages caused by her starvation. All of this went on in

an ordinary suburban house, on an ordinary street. Over the decade,

neighbours had very occasionally reported odd sightings to the police

but nothing more was done. Should you mind your neighbour's business?

What sort of society we -- should we aspire to be? Should the curtains

twitch a little more? We do need more curtain twitching estimation

mark there is in our society a fear of being seen as a busybody, is

being seen as someone who is overly invested in what goes on around

them. And that leads us to having a

certain take on what it means to being a good citizen. At the very

most perhaps we may be obliged to call the police or social services

where we think something is wrong, but we take no long-term holistic

interest in the people around us. We interest in the people around us. We

judge too little, and we are also judge too little, and we are

We are frightened about judging other people's behaviour, whether it

is acceptable or moral or correct. The flip side about that, we feel

great about how free we are to get on with our lives, but we feel less

compassionate for the people around us. We feel as though we are somehow

not involved in what goes on in their lives, and we should be.

What should be be judgemental about? It will differ for different people.

It is about expressing some concern and investment in the people around

you. What about people's right to

privacy? Courtesy is very important. As a

society, as we have moved away from being involved in being invested in

others' lives. If anything, we have empowered the state, we have

outsourced the way in which we expect behaviour to be monitored.

The police and community support officer and social workers will do

it all. Everyone thinks there is something ghastly about admitting

you are quite judgemental. I am judgemental when I see people

littering, people putting their feet on chairs in the train, I think it

is a bad thing. Sometimes I say something, sometimes I am too

frightened to. Or I have the social awkwardness of knowing that other

people will think I am a busybody. I am trying to break free of that.

To come out of the busybody closet. Yes, we should. You can't outsource

moral responsibility, can you? No, but sometimes we have a moral

response ability to mind our own business. Privacy is important. Now,

if our neighbours need help, and they ask for help, we should be

prepared to give it. And if we see a serious offence being committed, we

should alert the authorities. But we should be very cautious about

interfering in people's private lives. We should assume that our

neighbours are not holding people captive.

I agree with you on that. If you hear loud noises, your first

assumption should be the TV is too loud. If we have reasons to think

that someone is in danger of something and needs help, we should

be prepared to help. What if you have an elderly

neighbour living on their own, very isolated? You should enquire, but

gently, of course. If you can help, you should. We all have elderly

people around us. We all need increasingly insular lives.

They might not want help. In that case, you back off.

You said you shouldn't investigate your neighbours lives, we shouldn't

have too. We should have a relationship with the people around

us in society. There is a crucial difference between stalking your

neighbours, because you have become convinced they are holding people

captive. And having an ongoing relationship with people around

you. Your opponents say you are turning

us into a socialist east German nirvana excavation mark in socialist

East Germany, nobody could trust their neighbours.

In a society like ours, where we become increasingly insular, less

attached to the people around us, in that society they take -- the state

I am a local community councillor. Do not look at the monitor. I would

get a fright if I looked at the monitor! I have been a community

councillor in my area of. I am disabled and I live on benefits.

One elderly person said to me, you handicapped phone, terrible

language, you get everything -- folk. They said what to why get

from the council, not even a golden watch, I worked for them for 40

years! You lookout for your neighbours? If I saw someone in

trouble, I would be the first to help. We have to be the minds of

the police and if there is something suspicious happening, we

have to be responsible citizens. At the same time, we have to mind our

business. Let me hear what other people have to say. We do need to

mind other people's business more. Some people might not need help.

Why bother with them? Sometimes, it is difficult to ask for help. In

the case of a domestic abusive situation, it is difficult to say

this is happening. You might suspect that. When it is too late,

people will say I did suspect. Better safe than sorry. It is

better that way than to say it is none of my business. Irrespective

of what is a moral ideal, it is a question of practicality. People

look back to the idea of a golden age of knowing what your neighbours

were doing. It is the extent to which that is practical for most

people now. I am an elderly person living alone. Occasionally, I would

benefit from help for -- from a neighbour. When I moved to my

present accommodation, a neighbour came when I was unloading and

offered help. I did not have to ask for it. I would not have. I am an

independent person not given to asking for help. But help was

offered. Outside my house I have a plot of ground. When I want to move

the pot plants, they are heavy. I do not even have to ask, the

neighbours offer. That is marvellous. I do not know what they

were cat. We pass the time of day, they are aware there is an elderly

person in their area and they look after me. The that is in Edinburgh?

No, it is in Falkirk. In different parts of the country, Scotland did

well with people saying many had helpful neighbours. In London, it

was not. The police. If we reported everything we saw and everything we

thought people were doing wrong to you, you would not have any time to

do anything? The first part of the discussion has been about

vulnerability. That issue is important. People in the community

where crime is not an issue. We do not what -- we do not know what

happened in Cleveland, that is an exception. It is about

vulnerability and people feeling excluded. If we are good citizens

we can speak to neighbours. And less of a fear of crime, that is a

major thing for people. One neighbour talked about people

shouting for help and domestic abuse. A and screaming in the

street. We would look for contact, and contact us. Do not be

frightened we will jump into things. We will make an assessment and keep

people say. If you think you will phone the police, how long does it

take? A first thing is to telephone the police. In exceptional

circumstances, you could stand in. We spoke about the fear of being a

good citizen. In extreme circumstances and if there is

imminent harm, that is proper, people should do what they can. But

be careful, they often make matters worse all become victims themselves.

We have a responsibility to get there as quickly as we can and

support people. People might think if I do not do something, how can I

live with my conscience? We have started to have a dialogue with

people in the community about this. People want the support, having a

debate about being a good citizen. It is keeping an eye open, looking

to see what is happening around them. The main focus of our charity

his children and young people. People want to do something. They

are just looking for support. To be able to phone up a helpline, phone

the police will advise. They can do that anonymously. Social workers to

an amazing job. They get unfair criticism. They are damned if they

do and damned if they do not. should not rely on high-level

intervention. The intervention is there for ourselves and stop

looking out for people, the mother in the supermarkets struggling with

children -- and start looking out for people. She might be getting to

a point of frustration. Do not focus on her hitting the children.

Focus on doing something to make sure it does not happen. In the

last 30 years there has been a cult of individualism. And now you just

live your own life. In doing so, you could invade somebody else's

autonomy. It is the quality of relationships with others. There

are limits. We need to desire those relationships. And we benefit. It

is a reciprocal relationship. comes back you? It is a cultural

change we need rather than organisational. We prize autonomy.

But the idea that you become more autonomous when you break down

social connections is fundamentally untrue. Over the past decades we

have seen the erosion of connections to each other to the

extent to which we can call ourselves a society about relations.

The state has not backed off, it has become more interventionist

because it has had to fill the spaces left when we have retreated

from each other. The it has encouraged that, that is by CCTV.

It has a positive side and also an interfering side. There is a middle

ground that is between being a nosy neighbour. But looking around to

see what is going on. How many times do you bump into somebody

because they are going around like this? We need to be aware. If you

help people, you feel good. It is about caring for people. And the

way you would like them to care for you. It is too easy to get

sentimental about we should care for each other. People value

privacy. Nobody has mentioned Cleveland very much. But to take

that situation, which is rare, a low frequency type of event, and

extrapolate from that that we should check on our neighbours

because maybe they have people locked up, it is like the crack

down on civil liberties. If you go down the scale, there are other

cases. Were she not take rare events and go too far with them. --

we should not. The issue is about looking out in the community for

people who might need help. If you want to report things to police,

they will need a bigger budget. There are lines where there would

be a serious risk. Something getting to the level where

something is going on, but people know where that line is. A split-

second decision? It depends on what is going on. Over time, you get

suspicious about what is going on next door, and you think you have

to report it because you have not seen this person for six months.

People in their own homes, you should feel safe. Domestic abuse is

an insidious crime. Unfortunately, people do not call us and we know

people must have heard the screaming and shouting. The women

and the men themselves in some cases feel isolated. If they had

confidence to call the police, we could come and react to that.

was the Panorama programme, keeping it in the family, what should we do

about domestic abuse? Keep it in a small tight-knit community, that is

wrong? Sharia couts. You have people wanting to help people. The

mechanism through which you are now civic society to influence the

state. You have the police and social services, and they should

reflect the desire of civic society to help other people.. You cannot

knock on the door and say, is anything wrong? You have to create

an institution within the police and social services where they

respond to our desire for people -- for things to be done in the right

way. It requires research where they make the right decisions. In

Canada, there was an issue of the train bombing plot. The person who

reported it was a man who heard a concert -- who had a conversation

with another person of his congregation and he thought he had

been made radical. He reported that and lives were saved. You have to

make a decision based upon the police and social services having

the confidence of the general population. Then you are able to go

away from that is my neighbour, I take care of my neighbour. The way

society operates, we do not know who is next to us. I will be back

to talk about heaven in a minute. Thanks. You can join in all this

morning's debates by logging on to bbc.co.uk/the big questions and

following the link to the online discussion. And our last question,

do humans needs the idea of heaven? Next week is Pentecost. We are not

on. If you would like to be in any -- be in the audience, you can send

an e-mail to [email protected]. We are in Bristol on May 26th, and

then in Warrington on June 9th and brine on 23rd June. The Bible said

if you believe in Jesus and live a God-fearing life, heaven will be

your reward. Other faiths have other ideas, but they have similar

concepts of life everlasting, provided you keep to the rules. Do

humans need the idea of heaven? Why do we need the idea of heaven?

believe it exists. It is the moral issue of responsibility. If you do

something wrong, you disobey the law, there are consequences. That

is associated to your conscience. When your body comes to an end, it

is practical that your soul remains. It transfers to another place.

makes you do right? That is the other benefit of heaven, creating a

mechanism through which society can navigate difficult situations.

people who believe in heaven have done some of the most appalling

things in history. You have to look at whether the faith they had hit

two contained that behaviour. If it does, the faith stands condemned --

-- put faith they followed condoned that behaviour. You have to be

careful in terms of judgment on the religion not being a judgment on

the person and the other way around. It is about doing good things

because they are good, not about bonus points! That is true. For

Muslims, the higher state of pleasure is to contemplate the

divine being and the here after. At lower levels, it is a physical

pleasure. Everybody requires the fulfilment of what they deserve on

earth somewhere else. John Lennon picked upon this, taken in reverse,

he is saying we should live on earth. The first thing we learn as

Muslims when we study our faith, show mercy to people on earth. So

that the one in heaven shows mercy to you. Trying to live and ethical

life on Earth. Whether you believe that transfers into the hereafter,

that is another question. The Koran describes it in earthly terms.

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 44 seconds

Dark-eyed Virgin's. That is very Paradise, in a sense, is saying, in

the hereafter, if your soul has done good on earth, you are able to

contemplate everything that is happiness in the hereafter.

Do we need this? People can see it was developed as a social construct.

One might suggest there are other social constructs to encourage

people to do good things and we don't need an idea of anything

celestial. The real question which has not been asked, leaving aside

terrorism and atrocities, do people behave better...

Because of heaven? That is what we are focusing on.

The question is, does believing in heaven make you behave better? The

psychological studies on that are equivocal. When it comes to atheists

and other religious groups, there is a different case. There is a paper

in a psychological journal in the last year, a critique of this. If

you look at all of the studies, it is mainly focusing on this process

shall sentiment, so that is the test. Does believing in this stuff

make you a better person? It is a comfort thing as well.

Does it make you happy? That is another question. Studies have been

done on this. It is very difficult to tease apart whether happiness

from religion comes from believing, or the community that religion

gives. Community is a great thing, it makes you happy. The beliefs, I

don't necessarily think they matter. This gentleman here. You have been

in our audience before. You belong to a spiritualist church.

On a weekly basis, I see the comfort religion gives people. That there is

a loving, caring place you pass over to when you die. That gives people

on a weekly basis the comfort that other things in the world probably

cannot give. And knowing your loved ones are

there as well. There is a Mark Twain quote which is

famous, which counteract that. I do not fear death in view of the fact I

have been dead for billions of years before I was born and had not

suffered the slightest inconvenience from it!

Need I say more? The danger is that we create a human

construct of heaven, pearly gates, you are in, you are out, model. My

construct is there is something beyond this life, and part of the

religious experience is grappling with that. Let me tell you a story.

My son goes to this school. I first came across my son when I saw the

ultrasound of him in the hospital. His heartbeat. I left that to go and

take a funeral of a woman who in the night had died. She had had a great

life. There were a lot of tears and joy about that life. On that day, I

saw the power of love before life and love afterlife. It is grappling

with that idea, there is something beyond. We use metaphors to

understand. The meaningfulness of our existence, family, is that it

can't just be about this life. I try to find a sense of the presence

beyond which will take me to a place. I don't think I will become a

better person. My search for meaning is enhanced by that sense of

something beyond what is now. You need the inevitable

counterbalance the idea of hell? The idea of hell for me is distant from

that presence of love, God and beyond.

That this is all life is. That would be a description of hell.

It is true that the material world is not just the anything berries.

But you are right in saying, as well as the heavenly realms, there is

hell. Hell in the plural. There are many realms. It depends. It is in

our hands what happens to us after we die. The actions we do in this

life will determine what happens to us in the next life. Reincarnation

is part of the Buddhist belief. And so we understand we have been

existing since before time. Heaven and hell, if you cannot get to grips

with, you only have to think of it as being a heavenly state of mind,

or a hellish state of mind, which you can experience on this earth.

Is this all the same person? Consciousness is not something that

is born with the body. It inhabits the body. But a consciousness is not

born of the body because it is not a physical thing.

There is no evidence consciousness is not a physical thing. I don't

know what a lot of those words actually mean, consciousness,

realms. Maybe scientists have been looking at it. It doesn't mean

anything in a... Science is now beginning to

understand that the mind is actually not part of the physical body.

No, it's not. We are reducing all of our existence

down to electrical pulses and tiny little protons and neutrons. That,

for me, is meaningless. I want something beyond that to make sense.

Regardless of what you want, the universe...

You are saying only your world view counts.

I did not say that. You said I cannot have my view.

As they were saying in the American election campaign, you are entitled

to your own opinion but not you are entitled to your own opinion but not

your own evidence... The consciousness made -- may be

manifested in electrical pulses, but it is beyond that.

Can I ask, from a scientific point of view. If you have matter, matter

cannot give rise to consciousness. Consciousness is not a physical

thing. That is begging the question, you

asked the question at the beginning. There is no such thing as free

world? That comes from where? Your consciousness and awareness nurse --

awareness. The three of you will meet again, I

know that. In this life or the next. What I think from the economic point

of view, there is interesting work thinking about how we can model

heaven as an economic construct. I think this is completely bonkers.

However, the argument is quite simple. People who believe in heaven

are likely to change their behaviour on us. We can think of heaven in

some sense as being a large myth. Everybody needs some kind of myth,

some kind of way of understanding. We talked about community which

can, the way we talked about community, it was very much in terms

of a particular concept, and idealisation. Because we were

working from that, not empirically observed facts, something had to be

assumed. We had to beg the question in order to get the discussion

going. There is no way we can decide this matter otherwise. If heaven

helps people to be better on earth. To paraphrase Saint Teresa loosely,

after her visions, "that was very interesting, I must get on now and

scrub the floor. " if we can do that, we have a chance of getting to

the stage where we can create a community and go back to the first

question. Chris, when you talked about foreign aid as a moral

question, but ended it being utilitarian.

There is a young woman at the back who has had her hand up for a few

minutes. But you don't want to say anything about heaven?

If it gives people comfort, that is good. But you only get one life and

you have to make the most of this. Sorry I did not see you.

I think, the fact that people who are born into Christianity need that

sense that they are doing good things for heaven in the end. People

born without Christianity, they get that feeling they are living on this

world to enjoy this, and they can do good things but they do not need a

reward. Christians, they think, they do not need a reward. If heaven

doesn't exist, then you should enjoy the sake of doing good things.

If, by some atheistic miracle, Stewart got his way, and people

stopped believing in heaven, would this world be a worse place morally?

Well, I think that actually the view of the afterlife, particularly that

proposed by the Abraham hit regions, is nothing short of pernicious,

divisive, and an impediment to the moral development of children in

particular. Some justification is for that. I currently work in

education. Just the other day, I was involved in a discussion with

six-year-olds, one of whom was insisted she was not allowed to play

with particular little toys for the fact that, if she did, because they

were non-Christians, they would go to hell -- hell. I have seen Muslim

children are not allowed to engage in poetry writing. And one girl,

when asked by another child why she wore a headscarf, she informed us

that if she did not, she would go in the fire. This is damaging.

A short time left. Would we be better off without it?

I think some people clearly need it. As I hear myself saying that, it is

patronising. We, economists... We are out of time.