:00:00. > :00:25.Today on The Big Questions, atheism.
:00:26. > :00:35.Good morning. I am Nicky to The Big Questions. We are back at the Church
:00:36. > :00:39.of England Academy in York. Is it rational to believe in God?
:00:40. > :00:48.Welcome, everyone, to The Big Questions this morning. Pascal, the
:00:49. > :00:52.physicist and inventor, became a Christian philosopher later in his
:00:53. > :00:57.life. He combined the mathematics of probability with religious belief,
:00:58. > :01:01.in his famous wager, arguing that as you can either prove or disprove
:01:02. > :01:04.God's existence, you must wager that if God exists and you are a
:01:05. > :01:11.believer, you gain everything. If God does not exist, you lose
:01:12. > :01:18.nothing. So he reasoned that you should believe in God. So, would he
:01:19. > :01:25.say the same today, when the faithful are often pilloried as
:01:26. > :01:27.idiots and science continues to look for rational expeditions for the
:01:28. > :01:33.mysteries of life. Is it more rational to believe in God? We have
:01:34. > :01:36.a distinguished line-up of theologians, scientists, people of
:01:37. > :01:42.faith and people that have lost faith. You can have your say on
:01:43. > :01:47.Twitter, log onto the website where you will find links to continue the
:01:48. > :01:55.discussion. Lots of contributions from our very lively audience. Is it
:01:56. > :01:58.more rational to believe in God? There are people who say it is far
:01:59. > :02:06.more rational to believe in God than not to. You will not be surprised to
:02:07. > :02:11.hear they are sitting in the studio. What do you say to them? Well, I
:02:12. > :02:15.think you have got to look at what is rational, you have to look at
:02:16. > :02:19.what reasons give us reason to believe, on balance. I don't think
:02:20. > :02:22.it's helpful to say religious believers are irrational, as though
:02:23. > :02:26.they are just stupid. There is a balance of evidence and you have to
:02:27. > :02:29.ask, where does Italy and most heavily? If you were to ask, what
:02:30. > :02:33.would happen if some buddy came into this debate without prior knowledge,
:02:34. > :02:36.without an upbringing in one particular religion or another? I
:02:37. > :02:40.think if they look that the evidence they would conclude this is a
:02:41. > :02:43.natural universe without any supernatural guidance. The religions
:02:44. > :02:46.we have in this culture are eight product of different cultures, which
:02:47. > :02:52.is why there are different religions in different societies. That is a
:02:53. > :02:56.very broad brushed version of the Ottoman. Just on balance, that is
:02:57. > :03:02.what seems to be where the reasoned points. There is no natural,
:03:03. > :03:06.inherent... There is no God within us that means we have to believe in
:03:07. > :03:12.God? Or we are led to believe in God? It seems to be a natural
:03:13. > :03:15.instinct towards looking for purpose in the universe. It seems to be a
:03:16. > :03:19.natural human instinct to try and find reasons for things happening
:03:20. > :03:22.that are to do with motivations and desires. The fact that it is
:03:23. > :03:24.something we have evolved to have does not tell us anything about
:03:25. > :03:30.whether there is something they're doing that. The instinct is just an
:03:31. > :03:34.instinct, which you could say evolved because we need to look to
:03:35. > :03:38.how things work. We need to understand how things work and for
:03:39. > :03:41.other people, it is helpful to see them as having motives. That general
:03:42. > :03:45.instinct, when we apply it to the universe as a whole, is misapplied.
:03:46. > :03:51.Because the universe is not another person, something we need to
:03:52. > :03:55.understand the motivations of. So, that last point about how we have
:03:56. > :04:01.evolved to seek patterns and explanations, Professor Alister
:04:02. > :04:09.McGrath, we are basically primates, we are pattern seeking mammals? Of
:04:10. > :04:12.course we seek an explanation and also we seek comfort? Of course we
:04:13. > :04:16.are looking for explanations. That is what intelligent people do. It is
:04:17. > :04:21.about trying to work out what is going on in the world. Julian is
:04:22. > :04:26.also right to say that is part of who we are. But that does not deny
:04:27. > :04:31.the validity of looking for meaning, and its many why we think something
:04:32. > :04:35.does not invalidate the quest. I am a scientist, I began as an atheist
:04:36. > :04:38.and became a Christian, one of the enormously exciting things about
:04:39. > :04:42.discovering the Christian faith is not to be that it helped me be a
:04:43. > :04:46.better scientist, it really opened up this question of meaning. Many
:04:47. > :04:50.are watching this programme today precisely because of this question
:04:51. > :04:53.of meaning, that it really matters. It is not something you can reel off
:04:54. > :04:58.from just looking at the universe, it is about deep reflection. Maybe
:04:59. > :05:04.it is about the deepest instincts in us. Was your life lacking in meaning
:05:05. > :05:07.before? I think I had meaning, but it was a meaning I had just
:05:08. > :05:12.constructed. Is there something there I am meant to be walking into?
:05:13. > :05:16.A bigger picture that I could be part of? That seemed to me to be a
:05:17. > :05:22.very important question to ask. A lot of people point to certain
:05:23. > :05:27.precepts of religion and they see them as being irrational. Some
:05:28. > :05:32.people say, how can it be rational to take your religion, to accept
:05:33. > :05:43.that we are born sinful, that unless we get better we are threatened with
:05:44. > :05:48.hell, that the God that created as created. You can CYP Bull might
:05:49. > :05:52.think that is baloney? I can see why people would think that, with
:05:53. > :05:58.respect I don't think that. Many of your faith do? Exactly. You have to
:05:59. > :06:04.accept that Christianity is a rich religion and there are different
:06:05. > :06:12.perspectives. To say it is baloney, I want to say that Christianity is
:06:13. > :06:15.rich, exciting, enormously intellectually stimuli can. But it
:06:16. > :06:20.is a broad church and I belong to a depth that I think is great. He is
:06:21. > :06:24.exactly right, there are different forms of religion. Anybody that
:06:25. > :06:30.tries to say that religion is a rational because of X, you are never
:06:31. > :06:33.going to get to the bottom of it. We have this debate in these very
:06:34. > :06:38.polite ways and talk about how, of course, you don't have to believe in
:06:39. > :06:41.hell, when it comes down to it, it is true that the majority of
:06:42. > :06:45.religious people will believe at least one thing which to an atheist,
:06:46. > :06:49.to somebody that will take a purely scientific view, is kind of
:06:50. > :06:50.outrageous. In terms of Christianity, the bottom line for a
:06:51. > :06:54.lot of people is the resurrection. lot of people is the resurrection.
:06:55. > :07:00.They made out to certain things happened in the old Testament, but I
:07:01. > :07:03.have yet to find... Very few Christians I meet will be prepared
:07:04. > :07:06.to say, no, that boom was not empty because there was a resurrection of
:07:07. > :07:09.Christ. That is a because there was a resurrection of
:07:10. > :07:17.believe if you People do believe it. I'm not saying
:07:18. > :07:20.are going against, I think, a scientific worldview in that
:07:21. > :07:25.are going against, I think, a particular part. Vince, you want to
:07:26. > :07:28.come in? It's a really good point. I think sometimes there is an
:07:29. > :07:34.assumption that Christianity, or belief in God generally, is the more
:07:35. > :07:38.extraordinary belief, it is the more miraculous belief. Therefore, it has
:07:39. > :07:43.the burden of proof. I thought that for a long time. The more I reasoned
:07:44. > :07:47.about it, I thought, what other possible big picture explanations
:07:48. > :07:50.for the universe? There are only three primary ones. One might be
:07:51. > :07:54.that God made it. I might just put my hand up and say that is pretty
:07:55. > :07:57.extraordinary, it is remarkable. But if I look up the other two, the
:07:58. > :08:03.universe just popped into existence from nothing with explanation, it's
:08:04. > :08:05.a very odd option as well. Physical stuff normally doesn't pop in and
:08:06. > :08:11.out of existence. If it does not now, why would it then? Or we say
:08:12. > :08:14.that the universe has existed infinitely, stretching back in time.
:08:15. > :08:24.And I think that pushes the oddness one step back. Or universes? If
:08:25. > :08:27.there is a succession going back infinitely in time, still with no
:08:28. > :08:31.explanation for why that is the case. I come to the conclusion that
:08:32. > :08:36.we live in a miraculous world. If you are an atheist, theist or
:08:37. > :08:39.agnostic, I don't think there is any getting around that fact. Once I
:08:40. > :08:42.came to see that, I think I was more open to seeing that
:08:43. > :08:44.came to see that, I think I was more could take place. But it's
:08:45. > :08:49.impossible for us to conceptualise that stuff. 13.5 billion years, it
:08:50. > :08:52.is no more likely we are going to do it and a raft is going to explain
:08:53. > :08:57.what the London Underground is about? Whatever the truth is, it is
:08:58. > :09:00.extraordinary. It is extraordinarily hard to fathom. But I don't think
:09:01. > :09:07.anyone should think that the solution to come up with, whether
:09:08. > :09:09.they are atheist or theist is the final account. There are the
:09:10. > :09:15.mysteries that we don't understand, and there are deep mysteries for the
:09:16. > :09:19.more scientifically inclined people. Many religious people are
:09:20. > :09:27.scientifically inclined? Some of them are. A lot of them are. Some of
:09:28. > :09:29.them are? A lot of them are? It is a question of which extraordinary
:09:30. > :09:35.explanation fits the most. That is where I think the rationality points
:09:36. > :09:38.to the natural one. There are fascinating areas in signs to
:09:39. > :09:41.discuss. You touched on this, Julian, what about the cultural
:09:42. > :09:45.reasons? Different religions in different parts of the world,
:09:46. > :09:50.different cultural histories, different anthropological basis for
:09:51. > :09:53.those. Dr Lois Lee, this is quite interesting, recent studies have
:09:54. > :10:04.shown that societies with a stronger belief in heaven and hell have
:10:05. > :10:08.higher crime rates? This multi-fact , as they say. Societies with a
:10:09. > :10:12.welfare state, a big comfort blanket, lots of security for people
:10:13. > :10:17.within, they have lower religious belief. What can we extrapolate, if
:10:18. > :10:25.anything? And, goodness me, it is very compensated. It is. I think it
:10:26. > :10:29.gets to... You said, if we leave the religious backgrounds at the door,
:10:30. > :10:35.then we can work with evidence. That is a really big if. We can't leave
:10:36. > :10:39.our backgrounds at the door. Most people we find that you are
:10:40. > :10:43.religious or nonreligious according to the norm in your locale. It can
:10:44. > :10:46.be as local as the borough that you live in, it can be as local as your
:10:47. > :10:50.family, but it also works on the national level. When we are thinking
:10:51. > :10:55.about rationality, weighing up the evidence, we are putting to one side
:10:56. > :10:58.a big part of the picture, this cultural inclination towards one
:10:59. > :11:04.belief or another. As you said, there are many factors. The larger
:11:05. > :11:09.the welfare state, the less likely you are to be religious. The
:11:10. > :11:16.religious history of a country as well? Absolutely. What we can find
:11:17. > :11:20.is a general trend, the larger the welfare state and how relatively
:11:21. > :11:23.affluent it is, that can allow us to predict how religious it is or how
:11:24. > :11:28.atheist it is. Then we find we get pushed in different directions by
:11:29. > :11:32.the cultural backgrounds. State atheism have a big impact, we saw a
:11:33. > :11:38.big rise in atheism within that cultural context. So we have to
:11:39. > :11:41.consider those cultural factors and not say, because there is a big
:11:42. > :11:45.welfare state, therefore I can say that religion is all about comfort
:11:46. > :11:49.and so on. There isn't going to be an easy explanation like that.
:11:50. > :11:53.Certainly we need to take us into account. What about Sweden? Famously
:11:54. > :11:58.cited as an example of quite an atheist, agnostic or not very
:11:59. > :12:06.religious place. Are they a rational? Or are they very rational?
:12:07. > :12:09.-- irrational. If you do focus exclusively on rationality in these
:12:10. > :12:15.kinds of debates, you end up having to say the Swedish are more rational
:12:16. > :12:20.than the Brits, that you may wish to say. We are 13th highest in terms of
:12:21. > :12:26.the amount of atheism, in a shorter list. Are we the 13th most rational
:12:27. > :12:30.or 13th most irrational? So we would have to accept that we are less
:12:31. > :12:35.rational than the French, the Latvians, more rational than 27
:12:36. > :12:37.other countries. It's like the Eurovision Song Contest, we are
:12:38. > :12:42.never going to win anything! Is there a tipping point, perhaps,
:12:43. > :12:46.where it becomes... A lot of people are feeling at the moment that they
:12:47. > :12:50.think it is becoming unacceptable to express your religious belief. Is
:12:51. > :12:53.there a tipping point where I had become socially more acceptable and
:12:54. > :13:01.expected that you are not a believer? It's self-perpetuating, in
:13:02. > :13:08.a sense? Absolutely. The creation of a new culture, in which it is normal
:13:09. > :13:11.to be X or Y. That's important in terms of rational claims. You want
:13:12. > :13:18.to see that they back it up by their action. You see a transformation of
:13:19. > :13:21.rationality, which is very informed by these different cultural norms. I
:13:22. > :13:26.think Britain is quite an interesting country because there is
:13:27. > :13:31.a balance between religious cultures, Christian culture
:13:32. > :13:36.especially, and atheists and nonreligious cultures. They are the
:13:37. > :13:39.two, both sitting at 40% or 50%. It's an interesting space for
:13:40. > :13:45.discussion. Discussion matters, because that is what creates the
:13:46. > :13:52.cultures. The cultures influence what we then take on. There's no
:13:53. > :13:55.reason to say we have a deterministic view and there is no
:13:56. > :13:59.point even having the concession, but if we start to say someone is
:14:00. > :14:03.being irrational, we have to accept that we are all pretty irrational
:14:04. > :14:08.and accept that as a starting point. We are, I do this show a lot!
:14:09. > :14:12.Professor Alister McGrath, you are a very great scientist, but that is
:14:13. > :14:17.nothing to do with your religion, great scientist, great academic,
:14:18. > :14:22.highly respected. You are an evolutionary theist, you accept
:14:23. > :14:26.that. You said Adam and Eve were symbolic. We come into the science
:14:27. > :14:30.later on. You have already hinted at this, you can understand very well
:14:31. > :14:33.how some people point out aspects of religion and belief and think that
:14:34. > :14:37.is, if you'll pardon the expression, bonkers. The other accusation to you
:14:38. > :14:41.would be that you have moulded religion to fit into your
:14:42. > :14:50.rationality? And that is all you have done? Everyone who thinks about
:14:51. > :14:55.these questions has to say, do I buy into something that is already
:14:56. > :14:59.there? Do I think this through in a freethinking way? This is what I
:15:00. > :15:04.believe to be right. I would want to affirm the importance of
:15:05. > :15:08.rationality. The real problem we are facing is that only shallow truths
:15:09. > :15:14.can be proved. All of us are in a situation where there are deep
:15:15. > :15:27.questions like what is life all about? Is rape wrong? What has that
:15:28. > :15:32.got to do with it? In many ways we have to realise we are in a
:15:33. > :15:35.situation where to answer the big question is, we have to go beyond
:15:36. > :15:40.what reason is able to say. It is not a problem but it is an emphasis
:15:41. > :15:44.on the need to try to understand each other and allow these
:15:45. > :15:55.discussions to take place. I think that is what is missing at the
:15:56. > :15:59.moment. I have no problem with Julian but there are other atheists
:16:00. > :16:06.who are downright nasty. Religion doesn't have a clean record. Of
:16:07. > :16:10.course it doesn't. We will have a situation where we need to have a
:16:11. > :16:14.good conversation. Ridiculing, whether you ridicule faith or
:16:15. > :16:18.non-faith, makes things worse. We need to have an intelligent
:16:19. > :16:19.conversation, I think that is what we are having now.
:16:20. > :16:30.APPLAUSE Ollie Killingback is a former vicar,
:16:31. > :16:35.he is not one any more. There has to be discussion and balance and
:16:36. > :16:38.generosity. It seems to me, sitting among us, we have a group of
:16:39. > :16:46.rational people with widely different opinions. Those opinions
:16:47. > :16:51.are motivated by something. It seems he was on to something when he said
:16:52. > :16:57.the reason can only be the slave of the emotions. It seems religion is
:16:58. > :17:00.about an emotional commitment. I for one had reached the end of
:17:01. > :17:07.intellectual belief, long before I could make the actual move out of
:17:08. > :17:11.the church. It took me 20 years to get to the position where
:17:12. > :17:16.emotionally I was ready. What was the mindset when you were in the
:17:17. > :17:22.church? When you are a believer? I wish it was as clear as that but it
:17:23. > :17:25.is not. I started asking questions about my family's religious beliefs
:17:26. > :17:31.when I was five or six. The whole thing followed through through
:17:32. > :17:37.college and so on, there were always more questions than there were good
:17:38. > :17:42.answers. There were answers but often not good enough. I was on the
:17:43. > :17:48.way out not long after I was ordained, intellectual. People were
:17:49. > :17:54.saying that religion is a man-made phenomenon. Nonetheless, it is a
:17:55. > :18:00.good thing. I bought that. I lived hard with
:18:01. > :18:01.good thing. I bought that. I lived good thing. Those two don't sit
:18:02. > :18:07.together very well. good thing. Those two don't sit
:18:08. > :18:12.odd years to make the break and say, I can now take off this dirty
:18:13. > :18:17.garment and walk away from it. APPLAUSE
:18:18. > :18:24.garment and walk away from it. Julian on what Alistair has said
:18:25. > :18:28.about the big question is, to address the big question is, the
:18:29. > :18:33.profound questions about, why is rape wrong, I think that was how you
:18:34. > :18:42.put it. We somehow need to be religious beings.
:18:43. > :18:42.put it. We somehow need to be that... I didn't make my point,
:18:43. > :18:48.put it. We somehow need to be was saying we had to go beyond pure
:18:49. > :18:54.reason. You may raise religious questions along the way. It is that
:18:55. > :18:58.term pure reason. It is an important one. I think sometimes people on the
:18:59. > :19:01.atheist side of the debates overstate the extent how far
:19:02. > :19:04.rationality can take us. They think if you just follow reason and
:19:05. > :19:10.rationality, you can make sense of everything and nothing us is needed.
:19:11. > :19:15.Even great philosophers were not that optimistic about rationality.
:19:16. > :19:19.The point about rationality is pushing it as far as you can, being
:19:20. > :19:25.as rational as possible, applying as much reason as can be applied both
:19:26. > :19:30.but it is never pure and who claims that it is is onto a hiding to
:19:31. > :19:35.nothing and they will be guilty of that accusation, that rationality
:19:36. > :19:38.leaves lots of things undecided. You can always push rationales and
:19:39. > :19:42.justifications and as much as possible, and you only then have to
:19:43. > :19:49.put the other things in when those things have to fill a gap. You don't
:19:50. > :19:55.bring in rationality in before it is necessary.
:19:56. > :20:01.David Hume is one of the greatest of before suffers, gets mentioned in
:20:02. > :20:08.every book written by atheists against religion. This quote gets
:20:09. > :20:11.mentioned. To paraphrase, he asks, which is more likely, the
:20:12. > :20:16.supernatural explanation or people believing we supernatural
:20:17. > :20:21.explanation are mistaken? He comes up with that although the time. That
:20:22. > :20:27.is a good example. You can't prove one way or another. It is more
:20:28. > :20:32.likely people are mistaken? That is always more likely. There are
:20:33. > :20:35.possible circumstances where the evidence was so overwhelming,
:20:36. > :20:38.something could happen in front of the cameras so miraculous that we
:20:39. > :20:42.had to believe it was a genuine miracle and there was not a natural
:20:43. > :20:47.explanation. We haven't seen anything so far end history that was
:20:48. > :20:53.so commencing. -- in history that was so convincing. It is a question
:20:54. > :20:56.worth asking, would we believe it is a miracle or would we explain it
:20:57. > :21:03.away in some way? It depends what it was. If we saw a vision. For
:21:04. > :21:07.instance. Some of us might explain it away. It can be a matter of where
:21:08. > :21:13.your emotions are, where your heart is, how we perceive different
:21:14. > :21:17.situations. I think it is interesting, we talk about miracles.
:21:18. > :21:21.If we are going to say miracles don't happen, we are speaking
:21:22. > :21:28.against the vast majority of people throughout history, and globally
:21:29. > :21:33.still today. That doesn't prove that miracles do happen, but I do think
:21:34. > :21:41.we should be wary of being quick to say the vast majority historically
:21:42. > :21:44.and globally have been wrong. I think majorities in this case are
:21:45. > :21:48.not necessarily always right. APPLAUSE
:21:49. > :21:52.The other thing which is important is that once you force a crack in
:21:53. > :21:57.the laws of nature, once you say that for a moment the Earth is not
:21:58. > :22:00.going around the sun, relativity doesn't apply, Gravity doesn't
:22:01. > :22:08.apply, once you say that, you open up the entire universe to
:22:09. > :22:12.intervention. That is the important thing, that there is strong evidence
:22:13. > :22:17.on the other side. If we were on a grain -- game show and did not know
:22:18. > :22:24.the answer, I might poll the audience. If 98% said one thing and
:22:25. > :22:32.I went with another, people would say I was not rational, unless I had
:22:33. > :22:37.strong evidence. You raise this idea of the God of the gaps and
:22:38. > :22:45.intervention. Is it rational for you, Margaret, to have your belief?
:22:46. > :22:50.Yes, I think so. To believe in God seems entirely rational. If you will
:22:51. > :22:53.only believe what science has proven, whatever discovery is made,
:22:54. > :22:59.the same thing applied the day before it was made. Isn't it
:23:00. > :23:02.irrational to think that because you can't prove the existence of God,
:23:03. > :23:10.you either -- he therefore can't exist. Which is your God, the old
:23:11. > :23:14.Testament, the new Testament, Jesus? Jesus, yes. I have been researching
:23:15. > :23:20.a mystic called Julian who lived in the 14th century. He had a series of
:23:21. > :23:23.visions of the crucifixion. The image of God which he presents is
:23:24. > :23:30.totally in contrast to what we think of as the old Testament God. The God
:23:31. > :23:34.who went out smiting every day. Julian's theology which is very
:23:35. > :23:43.benign, he says God looks upon us in pity, not with blame and he doesn't
:23:44. > :23:47.condemn us for any wrong doing, and all wrongdoing has been forgiven,
:23:48. > :23:53.even before we ask for forgiveness. This is from somebody's visions.
:23:54. > :23:58.This is your point, if somebody had visions like that now, we would be
:23:59. > :24:01.extremely sceptical. The thing about Julian, she is accepted by the
:24:02. > :24:07.church, she is a blessing which means she is being beatified, she is
:24:08. > :24:10.on the way to being a saint. She is accepted as a great theologian. Are
:24:11. > :24:16.we accepting she really did have visions? Oh, yes, she wrote a book
:24:17. > :24:22.about it and she is accepted as a great theologian. The great Catholic
:24:23. > :24:25.20 century writer and mystic Thomas Merton describes as a true
:24:26. > :24:30.theologian in that she has the true image of God, this benign, loving
:24:31. > :24:36.image who never condemns us and is full of only compassionate love for
:24:37. > :24:42.us. Another idea of God. Moving on from the visions. This might even
:24:43. > :24:50.play to what Lois Lee was saying, of different cultures. This may even
:24:51. > :24:56.compromise the whole nation of the debate that we are having. We have a
:24:57. > :25:01.saying that reason and devotion are two wings of the same bird. And that
:25:02. > :25:06.both of them have a place. We also have an understanding that for some
:25:07. > :25:10.people, their attitude is such that pure rational explanation is what
:25:11. > :25:15.satisfies and gives them a sense of tranquillity. And for others, a
:25:16. > :25:18.divine experience or devoted worshipper gives them a sense of
:25:19. > :25:23.tranquillity. Our approach is that it seems to be a sense of
:25:24. > :25:26.tranquillity gives a person and experience which the mystics have
:25:27. > :25:33.always tried to communicate in some sort of a deficient blend which. Our
:25:34. > :25:39.focus is on -- deficient language. Our focus is how do you become
:25:40. > :25:42.eternally tranquil? In that state, there are no beliefs. I would even
:25:43. > :25:48.suggest that having a belief is unreasonable. I think that is right,
:25:49. > :25:55.there is a space for the rational... Everyone is agreeing
:25:56. > :25:58.beyond the rational. There is a slightly false dichotomy between
:25:59. > :26:02.rationality and religion that we therefore think atheists are all
:26:03. > :26:08.about rationality, which is not what we are trying to say. I interview
:26:09. > :26:12.atheists about their day-to-day lives and so on. I have a strong
:26:13. > :26:19.sense of the meaning systems, the aesthetics, the opportunities for
:26:20. > :26:25.devotion, if not the divine, full communion with out to tranquillity
:26:26. > :26:30.and so on, which not every atheist is interested in, in the same way
:26:31. > :26:34.that religious people are not all about those spaces. There are
:26:35. > :26:43.relaxed list religious cultures as well as .
:26:44. > :26:50.If you take it to a lot go conclusion, having a belief in the
:26:51. > :26:53.existence of some god figure, I would say is equally as irrational
:26:54. > :26:56.as having a belief in the nonexistence. Because they are both
:26:57. > :27:05.beliefs. APPLAUSE
:27:06. > :27:09.I absolutely agree. People have belief systems, mindsets, ways of
:27:10. > :27:15.getting through the night, basically. As a Muslim, you have had
:27:16. > :27:23.a bit of flak recently. You took part in a music video, showing... It
:27:24. > :27:28.wasn't my bad dancing. It was the tune, Happy. Showing Muslims being
:27:29. > :27:35.happy and dancing. You have had a lot of flak. People point to things
:27:36. > :27:39.like that, some people will believe you are wrong to do that, they are
:27:40. > :27:40.entitled to have that belief. It is about the rules and red delicious,
:27:41. > :27:52.what sort of God is this question I I think many rudest people do a
:27:53. > :27:58.disservice to religion. -- many religious people do a disservice. It
:27:59. > :28:05.does not represent the actual faith itself. Going back to Ollie's point
:28:06. > :28:10.about believing in God is based on emotion, I think that statement is
:28:11. > :28:14.based on emotion. There are volumes of books in the British library,
:28:15. > :28:21.King 's College library, discussing religious philosophy, using
:28:22. > :28:26.philosophy, argument, logic. There are books like that on both sides.
:28:27. > :28:29.Of course, I am not saying atheism is irrational but I would say that
:28:30. > :28:37.the overwhelming evidence, especially now, is on the side of
:28:38. > :28:42.God. The last 40 or 50 years, when scientists examined the universe, we
:28:43. > :28:45.are pretty much convinced that the explanation of the universe is not
:28:46. > :28:51.contained within the universe will stop it points to outside or beyond
:28:52. > :28:57.the universe. To categorise believing in God is emotional is
:28:58. > :29:05.rather juvenile. It is very outdated. It is very much
:29:06. > :29:08.enlightenment, outdated claptrap. There is a lot of outdated claptrap
:29:09. > :29:16.in religion, which you haven't acknowledged. We are comparing
:29:17. > :29:21.atheism to the irrationality of religion, let's say. There are
:29:22. > :29:24.irrational aspects within religion. That is a false comparison. Even if
:29:25. > :29:30.religion is false, it would not prove that atheism is true. God can
:29:31. > :29:33.still exist even if religion is false. There is a false comparison
:29:34. > :29:37.so far. If we look at the evidence on the side of God and atheism, the
:29:38. > :29:42.overwhelming evidence is on the side of God. One thing we can talk about
:29:43. > :29:47.is the extent to which people who have religious belief, if any
:29:48. > :29:51.bonuses on them at to show their belief is rational. There is an onus
:29:52. > :29:54.to show that your belief is not contrary to what we know about
:29:55. > :29:57.science, but there is a long tradition in religion of actually
:29:58. > :30:02.thinking that the basis of faith is not a deductive argument, it is not
:30:03. > :30:09.rationality, it is an encounter with the divine, an emotional thing.
:30:10. > :30:16.Doubting Thomas is held up as a counterexample. He says, I'm going
:30:17. > :30:22.to give belief when I see that wound. The people praised those ones
:30:23. > :30:26.that make the leap of faith beforehand. There can be too much
:30:27. > :30:30.wanting to claim rationality. I think you are redefining my
:30:31. > :30:34.position. My position is that I believe in God on a rational basis.
:30:35. > :30:38.It's all very well saying that the leap of faith is what religious
:30:39. > :30:42.people should be involved in, but that is a convenient redefining of
:30:43. > :30:48.Mike position. I wasn't talking about your position personally, I
:30:49. > :30:52.was talking generally. The majority of religious people don't believe
:30:53. > :30:56.because they think it is and emotional position, it's because
:30:57. > :30:58.they think it makes sense to believe in God, especially in a world where
:30:59. > :31:03.we are discovering more about the origin of the universe. People would
:31:04. > :31:18.say we have evolved because of that fine June in. -- shooting. --
:31:19. > :31:28.tuning. Bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions would you say you are an emotional
:31:29. > :31:34.atheist? Let us say we have two professors of biology at our great
:31:35. > :31:41.universities. Both of them, leading scientists. One, from what he sees
:31:42. > :31:46.in biology, says he is convinced that religion cannot be the case.
:31:47. > :31:51.The other one comes to exactly the opposite conclusion, that the
:31:52. > :31:55.evidence, their reason, each one's individual rationality leads them to
:31:56. > :32:00.their own opinion. What drives that opinion is the inclinations they
:32:01. > :32:04.were born with, the education they have had, the emotional experiences
:32:05. > :32:09.they have had. The whole personalities. That is what forms
:32:10. > :32:12.at. The crux of the demented as this. Shall we believe that the
:32:13. > :32:19.entire argument to leg universe can come from nothing? Let's talk about
:32:20. > :32:24.where the entire universe came from. We mentioned it earlier on, the
:32:25. > :32:29.whole idea of the scientists, the God of the gaps. Where there is an
:32:30. > :32:33.apparent gap in scientific knowledge, historically, there has
:32:34. > :32:37.been an explanation that God did it. And the gaps are, it is said by
:32:38. > :32:44.some people, the habitat is shrinking. When there are stunned,
:32:45. > :32:50.we know that God is not angry. -- thunder. We know how rainbows are
:32:51. > :32:56.made. Is that a problem for religious people? I think the God of
:32:57. > :33:03.the gaps argument is an interesting one. I would actually say that it is
:33:04. > :33:11.probably quite poor theology to revert to the God of the gaps. What
:33:12. > :33:16.you're doing his inserting a into day-to-day phenomena. Here's a
:33:17. > :33:28.hostage to science explaining something? I would explain the point
:33:29. > :33:32.in terms of the validity of truth. I will never stand outside of this
:33:33. > :33:36.universe. I think we need to recognise that that kind of meta-
:33:37. > :33:44.causal process, we will potentially never know. Science will never fill
:33:45. > :33:48.that gap? Then we cannot claim that God does not exist. The reverse of
:33:49. > :33:55.that claim also has to be the case. I entirely agree. But we have people
:33:56. > :34:00.on the side of the atheist saying that God doesn't exist. Not all
:34:01. > :34:03.atheists. We say that atheist 's experience God not existing in the
:34:04. > :34:09.same way that the rest is experienced the divine. How can you
:34:10. > :34:16.experience thing that is not there? I thought we have the irrationality!
:34:17. > :34:22.Let's put Julian into the gap. Keen to fill the gaps. Some gaps will
:34:23. > :34:27.never be filled. Let's talk about that first cause, has raised by
:34:28. > :34:32.Adam. This is where the brain started to hurt. What caused it?
:34:33. > :34:36.What caused the cause of the first cause? It is infinite regression.
:34:37. > :34:40.Does that not make you think, hang on a minute, something is going on?
:34:41. > :34:44.Bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions it is extreme the puzzling. It's true. But
:34:45. > :34:50.what you come up with is an answer on a very abstract level. This is
:34:51. > :34:53.the point. Even if, by rationality and reason, you are convinced, which
:34:54. > :35:03.most philosophers are, that there must have been an original first
:35:04. > :35:07.cause, and uncaused first cause. That gives you a general concept.
:35:08. > :35:12.People who are religious do not believe in an abstract concept like
:35:13. > :35:17.that. They believe in a specific God, created in the shape of the
:35:18. > :35:21.particular religion, whatever it might be. So if you are going to
:35:22. > :35:23.talk about trying to build things on reason alone, I think the problem
:35:24. > :35:27.with that is that you're going to be left with a very abstract idea,
:35:28. > :35:33.which does not have a lot of connection with the very ritually
:35:34. > :35:41.rounded, often personality driven gods of religion. I am interested in
:35:42. > :35:48.this uncaused first cause. No proper reputable scientist thinks that God
:35:49. > :35:54.created like Walt Disney designing mice. Let's go back to the Big Bang.
:35:55. > :35:57.If you think God was responsible for the Big Bang, is it a credible
:35:58. > :36:03.argument to say, was there a cause of the first cause, all was the
:36:04. > :36:06.first cause, necessarily, uncaused? Supposing we had been meeting here a
:36:07. > :36:09.century ago, we would not be having this conversation. At that time,
:36:10. > :36:13.science thought that the universe had always been here. One thing that
:36:14. > :36:21.we make absolutely clear is that science is on a journey, it changes
:36:22. > :36:24.its mind. These massive, exciting discussions we are having... Because
:36:25. > :36:28.it knows more and more? Absolutely. I agree what was said about the God
:36:29. > :36:31.of the gaps, I think it is silly, really. What is much more
:36:32. > :36:34.interesting is why we explain things at all, why does science raise these
:36:35. > :36:39.wonderful questions it can't actually answer? For me, it is not
:36:40. > :36:43.looking at gaps, it is standing back and trying to say, is there a big
:36:44. > :36:47.picture of things that makes sense of what we see, fits things in,
:36:48. > :36:51.brings meaning and joy to life. That is a much more interesting question.
:36:52. > :36:54.It's not about digging around for gaps, it is saying, there is a big
:36:55. > :37:02.picture here, let's figure out what it is and whether we are part of it.
:37:03. > :37:07.An experience I had when I was a young clergyman, simply asked me
:37:08. > :37:13.outside the church on a Sunday morning, why it was that I believed
:37:14. > :37:18.in God. I trotted out the answer I had given before, it seems to me
:37:19. > :37:22.that the universe reflects the kind of thing is that Christianity says
:37:23. > :37:30.are at the basis of everything. The warmth, for example, that Julian
:37:31. > :37:37.talks about. I heard myself saying my head, you know what, that isn't
:37:38. > :37:41.true. The universe is not warm, it is not forgiving, it is a cold,
:37:42. > :37:49.empty, nasty place. Which we could not survive in. For me, that was a
:37:50. > :37:50.turning point. For some people it is exactly how you would expect it to
:37:51. > :37:54.be if it had exactly how you would expect it to
:37:55. > :37:57.from nowhere. For other people, it exactly as you would expect if
:37:58. > :38:02.had been a creator. We had some had been a creator. We had some
:38:03. > :38:07.hands up. Three guys at the back? Glasses, first of all. The point has
:38:08. > :38:09.made that science is changing over time, but religion is as well. But
:38:10. > :38:15.it's never held to the same account. For example, religion was opposed to
:38:16. > :38:22.evolution, now they are slowly accepting that maybe
:38:23. > :38:22.evolution, now they are slowly churches preach we are the only
:38:23. > :38:26.evolution, now they are slowly planet with life on it because we
:38:27. > :38:28.are God's chosen people. I think when we discover life on
:38:29. > :38:29.are God's chosen people. I think planet, maybe, religion
:38:30. > :38:33.are God's chosen people. I think its spots, but will never be held to
:38:34. > :38:37.the same account as a scientist would be if he had disagreed with
:38:38. > :38:44.that. I was good to say the same thing. I was going to develop on
:38:45. > :38:47.that. It becomes an issue of falsification. If you say God did
:38:48. > :38:57.it, there is no way an atheist can disprove you. Then the fact that
:38:58. > :39:04.science keeps developing, and that religion is very stoic in its
:39:05. > :39:08.approach, it's... I think religion does change. Surely religion has
:39:09. > :39:12.approach, it's... I think religion changed to accommodate itself to
:39:13. > :39:15.scientific discovery? Is rather saying, let's see if we have
:39:16. > :39:23.interpreted these text is right. John Paul II, one of the things he
:39:24. > :39:25.did during his papacy was say that actually, Darwin was right. Was that
:39:26. > :39:30.not a case of the church changing actually, Darwin was right. Was that
:39:31. > :39:37.because of inescapable evidence? No, if you look at Catholics over the
:39:38. > :39:42.last century, if you look at Augustus saying that the universe
:39:43. > :39:45.came to be in an instant and then developed over a long period of
:39:46. > :39:49.time. I think it was great for the discussion the other day, you know,
:39:50. > :39:52.maybe science and religion need each other. Science is rightly saying,
:39:53. > :39:55.maybe science and religion need each why do you think that is right? Very
:39:56. > :39:58.good question. Religion is saying, what is the deeper meaning of
:39:59. > :40:04.things? These things can go together to give a full view of things. I
:40:05. > :40:09.just wanted to come back on the point about evolution and religion
:40:10. > :40:11.being in a kind of clash. We have to be very careful with the history
:40:12. > :40:16.here. It's not as clearly defined as was just implied by that question.
:40:17. > :40:22.That clash does not necessarily exist in the publication of The
:40:23. > :40:28.Origin Of The Species onwards. It's quite recent, it's a political and
:40:29. > :40:33.ideological construction and a product of the 20th century. One of
:40:34. > :40:38.the things that we have to recognise is that the majority of people do
:40:39. > :40:41.not necessarily see there being a necessary conflict between science
:40:42. > :40:46.and religion. We have to really, really step away from communicating
:40:47. > :40:50.science and atheism as one thing. There are a couple of points where
:40:51. > :40:53.we have been doing that, where we have conflated science and atheism
:40:54. > :41:03.together and they are two very different things. You have tried
:41:04. > :41:08.Mormonism, you tried Islam. Now you have tried atheism. How is it going?
:41:09. > :41:12.Well, I'm not really keen on the personal account type of approach.
:41:13. > :41:18.But I did want to pick up on... I forgot your name? Professor Alister
:41:19. > :41:23.McGrath. About the meaning of religion. If we take religion to be
:41:24. > :41:28.a general theory of how the world works, perhaps we can also is
:41:29. > :41:31.deliberately think that the have developed in response to what is
:41:32. > :41:36.going wrong in the world. I think this is missed by militant atheists
:41:37. > :41:42.who criticise people for being religious. They don't recognise and
:41:43. > :41:46.understand the great comfort that religion brings to people. The
:41:47. > :41:50.explanations of the world. That is one of the reason why I am
:41:51. > :41:55.completely against... They are at liberty to say, as Christopher
:41:56. > :42:00.Hitchens did, that it is a false consolation, that is a perfectly
:42:01. > :42:03.valid argument? One of the things this concession is showing us that
:42:04. > :42:06.there can be reasons on both sides of debate. I think we all agree,
:42:07. > :42:12.words like track quality and peace were used earlier, we can all agree
:42:13. > :42:16.that those are valuable things. From a Christian perspective, the place
:42:17. > :42:19.where I find peace is in knowing that you are loved, unconditionally,
:42:20. > :42:24.by someone that will never forsake you, by somebody that would even
:42:25. > :42:29.suffer for you, give his life for you. Given that, rationally, we can
:42:30. > :42:35.think about these questions and say... It's comforting? We had to
:42:36. > :42:41.ask the question, is it the mind that keeps us from belief in God or
:42:42. > :42:48.something else? Father? I have sinned! Albert Einstein, who was
:42:49. > :42:54.once asked, did he ever think we would come up with an explanation
:42:55. > :43:00.for the origin of the universe. He said, no, but when he thought the
:43:01. > :43:06.answer would be found will be two things, beautiful and simple. My
:43:07. > :43:12.faith is not about understanding how the world works or anything like
:43:13. > :43:18.that. What I hope my faith is is a lifelong exploration of truth and
:43:19. > :43:24.beauty, which I hope is what good science and philosophy is as well.
:43:25. > :43:28.Serenity? Well, that is the product of finding the truth and the beauty.
:43:29. > :43:33.I find that in the Christian message and I've got to try and deepen my
:43:34. > :43:37.understanding and faith in that. The last point I would want to make is
:43:38. > :43:42.that faith, actually, I just want to say in this context, the context of
:43:43. > :43:49.this argument, certainty, in a sense, is the opposite of faith.
:43:50. > :43:53.Doubt is not the opposite of faith. That is where I see the coming
:43:54. > :43:58.together of faith and reason. It's an explanation. This century, we
:43:59. > :44:03.have become good at throwing stones at each other. We have always been
:44:04. > :44:09.very good at throwing stones. Adam, what is the biggest problem that
:44:10. > :44:15.science poses for religion? If you were an atheist and were saying that
:44:16. > :44:19.science had blown it out of the argument, what is the best argument
:44:20. > :44:22.that they have? Against God? I don't figured would be a scientific
:44:23. > :44:28.argument, it would be a philosophical and moral argument,
:44:29. > :44:33.the problem of evil. That is one of the biggest contention is that exist
:44:34. > :44:37.against theism. It has generally Billy Bragg wrote genuinely just
:44:38. > :44:41.occurred to me, God knows everything that is going to happen. If he knows
:44:42. > :44:46.everything that is going to happen, what is the point? What is the point
:44:47. > :44:56.of converting? Does that not invalidate three will? There is
:44:57. > :44:59.salacious reasoning. Just because knows -- just because God knows
:45:00. > :45:06.something, it does not cause him to act. Does the Christian God in
:45:07. > :45:10.everything that is going to happen? Yes, I believe so. If I watch my
:45:11. > :45:16.goddaughter from across the room, I know how she is going to act before
:45:17. > :45:19.she does so. If it is true that God knows every hair on our heads, if he
:45:20. > :45:22.knows are so much more than I know my goddaughter, it is not surprising
:45:23. > :45:27.he would note how we might act. It doesn't mean he is causing it or
:45:28. > :45:36.controlling it. Julian, do you have a view? I don't think it is a
:45:37. > :45:41.problem. Why isn't God's foreknowledge a problem? Because you
:45:42. > :45:45.can know what somebody wants to do of their own free will. The fact you
:45:46. > :45:49.can see it in advance doesn't mean it wasn't their own free will that
:45:50. > :45:58.caused it. I really don't think it is a problem. Coming in on this
:45:59. > :46:01.notion of free will, this isn't just a problem for theological discourse,
:46:02. > :46:10.it is a problem for atheist discourse as well. We risk losing an
:46:11. > :46:17.atheist conception of free will, which ties us back into the play to
:46:18. > :46:23.call, ideological... It is a side step too far? If we believe in a
:46:24. > :46:29.naturalistic world, a material world, the self is lost. We lose
:46:30. > :46:40.personal identity, we lose what makes us human. OK... It is
:46:41. > :46:44.overstating it. There are challenges, there is a kind of
:46:45. > :46:49.strand of overconfident atheism which thinks science will lead us to
:46:50. > :46:52.the promised land. But it certainly does raise questions about our
:46:53. > :46:57.inherent ability to even know the truth, our ability to have free will
:46:58. > :47:01.and so forth. I don't think these things blow it out of the water,
:47:02. > :47:06.they are not unanswerable, I don't think it makes the self and illusion
:47:07. > :47:09.but I think honest atheism needs to accept that the scientific world
:47:10. > :47:16.view is not entirely comfortable for everything that atheists believe
:47:17. > :47:22.either. Satish Sharma, is the Hindu conception of a greater power more
:47:23. > :47:29.in your mind compatible with science? It is a completely
:47:30. > :47:34.integrated experience. It is of no consolation to me to be convinced
:47:35. > :47:38.that yes, God exists intellectually. That is of no value
:47:39. > :47:43.to me whatsoever. They believe changes from moment to moment as you
:47:44. > :47:46.learn things. The only consolation, the only thing that would satisfy
:47:47. > :47:51.would satisfy would-be and experience. If you take the mystics
:47:52. > :47:55.out of the picture, the whole God argument becomes intellectual
:47:56. > :47:59.cogitation. The mystics had experiences. Our approach is what we
:48:00. > :48:04.do to recreate our experience in our awareness. The teaching is that when
:48:05. > :48:08.that experience happens, suddenly there is an expanded connectivity
:48:09. > :48:12.with all of life and all of creation. It becomes a knowing
:48:13. > :48:21.rather than a computational deduction. There are some hands in
:48:22. > :48:27.the audience. We have touched a few times on evidence. Don't we go a lot
:48:28. > :48:31.on things that we simply know? How do you know that your nearest and
:48:32. > :48:36.terraced love you? It is because you do know it, you can't put that in a
:48:37. > :48:46.test tube and you can't intellectualise that. To a certain
:48:47. > :48:52.extent, we can expect behaviour but it is a knowing. That is what people
:48:53. > :48:54.of faith have. I don't think it makes any difference whether you are
:48:55. > :49:01.Hindu or must limp or Christian, it is that knowing, that intimacy, that
:49:02. > :49:06.knowledge of God. You simply can't intellectualise it. We could argue
:49:07. > :49:16.all day and it would never make any difference. I actually don't believe
:49:17. > :49:20.in miracles. I went to Lourdes and I found it ever so depressing. I do
:49:21. > :49:26.have a fate and I believe part of having a faith is leaving. I don't
:49:27. > :49:33.believe, with respect, atheism, so I feel that faith is very important.
:49:34. > :49:42.Is atheism a belief system as much as any? Going back to our earlier
:49:43. > :49:48.discussion, I would argue that atheism is a belief system. I am an
:49:49. > :49:55.atheist, a lifelong atheist, I grew up in a scientific household.
:49:56. > :50:05.Atheism and science are not linked, necessarily. Touche! I say that
:50:06. > :50:10.because I work on communicating evolutionary science I have to be
:50:11. > :50:15.quite careful. I am concerned about what agendas I have. The point I
:50:16. > :50:21.would like to make about whether or not we need religion is, there are a
:50:22. > :50:25.couple of ways we can cut this up. We could argue there is an
:50:26. > :50:30.evolutionary reason for having religious beliefs. There are two
:50:31. > :50:35.ways way could look at it. We could think of religion as a by-product of
:50:36. > :50:44.other processes. As there is an evolutionary reason for love. It is
:50:45. > :50:49.for breeding and security... What Julian was referring to is religion
:50:50. > :50:53.as an evolutionary by-product, it could be an adaptive advantage,
:50:54. > :50:57.being able to work in social groups. It doesn't tell us anything about
:50:58. > :51:05.whether God exists or not. All it tells us is that there is religion
:51:06. > :51:14.in society which has existed for quite a long time. That is the fact
:51:15. > :51:22.we deal with. From when? Did the Neanderthals have a God
:51:23. > :51:33.consciousness? There is evidence of early prehistory, miso payer
:51:34. > :51:40.we know it has played a part of human society from early human
:51:41. > :51:43.history, all the way through recorded history. The other thing we
:51:44. > :51:47.know is that it is one of the defining categories of worldview for
:51:48. > :51:52.most people on the planet now. We have to deal with that, whether we
:51:53. > :51:55.are atheists or not. We have to accept we live in a world of
:51:56. > :52:00.difference, a pluralistic society and we have defined ways to engage
:52:01. > :52:05.with each other so we can communicate with an open dialogue.
:52:06. > :52:15.There are some hands up. The microphone is coming. In relation to
:52:16. > :52:19.the freedom of will, God in the Koran mentioned that people liked
:52:20. > :52:22.the atheists would come out and say things, let them prove it. This has
:52:23. > :52:32.been predicted, that people will come, very clever. The other thing,
:52:33. > :52:38.the revelation of the Koran will challenge science. That is in the
:52:39. > :52:43.Koran, 1400 years ago. The miraculous birth of Christ will
:52:44. > :52:47.believe it and also the Koran, it is the Graces miracle throughout
:52:48. > :52:50.history and atheists cannot challenge that because they can't
:52:51. > :52:55.discuss it in Arabic -- it is the greatest miracle. Game over, let's
:52:56. > :53:01.go home. It is the God of the gaps again. It is. This is what we need
:53:02. > :53:06.to be careful about. In my field of interest around evolutionary theory,
:53:07. > :53:10.we have to recognise it is not often a conversation about science but a
:53:11. > :53:14.conversation about theological debates, literalist interpretations
:53:15. > :53:17.of texts. It is nothing to do would be science. I don't have to talk
:53:18. > :53:21.about evidence to do with evolutionary theory because your
:53:22. > :53:24.conversation is intra to your own faith perspective. Other people from
:53:25. > :53:33.your own faith perspective would probably challenge or stance. The
:53:34. > :53:39.gentleman at the edge. A lot of the discussion that has taken religious
:53:40. > :53:44.group or context but the gentleman said you don't have to belong to a
:53:45. > :53:46.religious group to believe in God. The thought system from the
:53:47. > :53:53.Enlightenment didn't necessarily block to Christianity, Islam
:53:54. > :54:03.Judaism, it acknowledged the fact that God is an entity. I believe in
:54:04. > :54:06.God but I'd don't... I am a Christian but I see the two as
:54:07. > :54:12.separate and I think that is a big heart of the debate. We need to take
:54:13. > :54:16.the idea of God away from... I thought you were going to say I am a
:54:17. > :54:21.Christian but I don't believe in God. New Church of England people
:54:22. > :54:29.got not being serious! -- you Church of England people got not being
:54:30. > :54:37.in terms of practice, I am not very religious. The fact that we are
:54:38. > :54:42.alighting believing in God and religion, we need to keep it at some
:54:43. > :54:56.distance. It makes a much better discussion. We are the 13th most
:54:57. > :55:01.atheistic out of 40 countries in the world, what is driving people, what
:55:02. > :55:08.does drive people to atheism? Is it the examples of religion that you
:55:09. > :55:11.would describe as extreme? I think the rise of religious fundamentalism
:55:12. > :55:16.is the biggest driver of atheism in the world. I want to put my hand up
:55:17. > :55:24.and say maybe I'm contributing to that. You're not a religious
:55:25. > :55:29.fundamentalist. We need to think carefully and saying in effect, we
:55:30. > :55:32.are causing this problem. Secondly, there is also the question of the
:55:33. > :55:36.cultural authority of science which we have talked about quite a lot. I
:55:37. > :55:45.think scientists do need to make it clear that science is neutral. I
:55:46. > :55:52.don't say it is anti-religious but it is science. Science is science,
:55:53. > :55:55.it is great. When it starts behaving as if it has answers on religious
:55:56. > :55:59.things, it actually damages its self. I think that needs to be said.
:56:00. > :56:04.We need to purify science and rescue it from being used as a weapon from
:56:05. > :56:09.either religious or religious fundamentalists. Thomas Huxley made
:56:10. > :56:16.the point. He said science commits suicide once it adopts a creed. I am
:56:17. > :56:21.asking, can we purify science and get back to what we used to be? Can
:56:22. > :56:25.you purify religion of these ideological elements, people say it
:56:26. > :56:30.is ridiculous, the world was not created in... The ideological
:56:31. > :56:35.element 's most people are worried about is the propensity towards
:56:36. > :56:41.violence. That is a big one we have to face up to. My old theology
:56:42. > :56:48.teacher started out with something which echoed what you said. She
:56:49. > :56:57.began her first lecture by saying, if we believe that God is truth,
:56:58. > :57:01.theology is a journey into truth and it is -- there is no for no question
:57:02. > :57:06.which cannot be asked, no difficult question which may be ducked. I
:57:07. > :57:10.followed that teaching and it led me away from the church. She wouldn't
:57:11. > :57:14.like where I have gone to but she would approve the methods. That
:57:15. > :57:25.journey into light and truth is the way to go. Do you think it is a
:57:26. > :57:31.genuine threat to religions of mainstream views? Speaking as a
:57:32. > :57:37.Muslim I have seen my own faith, Islam, being hijacked by
:57:38. > :57:42.extremists. I don't know if it justifies Muslims becoming atheist,
:57:43. > :57:50.but certainly they contribute in becoming apostates. The abandonment
:57:51. > :57:53.of faith? Yes, and in some cases they are justified. They are not
:57:54. > :58:00.rejecting Islam but a perverted version of Islam. Very much so, I
:58:01. > :58:04.would agree that religious people, extremists, are contributing to
:58:05. > :58:12.anti-religious sentiments and atheists. What I would also say, I
:58:13. > :58:14.would support religious front -- what supports religious
:58:15. > :58:25.fundamentalism is extreme militant atheism. That is a problem as well.
:58:26. > :58:29.You have made a very balanced point, we have to leave it there,
:58:30. > :58:38.thank you for watching, we will see you next ample stock thank you all
:58:39. > :59:09.for taking part. -- see you next time. Thank you all for taking part.
:59:10. > :59:13.Does anybody know exactly what they're eating?