Episode 7 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions: Church splits, assisted dying, and godless

religions. Good morning, I'm Nicky Campbell.

Welcome to The Big Questions. Today we're live from Leith Academy in

Edinburgh. Welcome, everyone, to The Big Questions.

This week, the Archbishop of Canterbury told the Church of

England's General Synod that it might have to accept changes that

many members won't like at all for the sake of unity. The Church should

not be afraid of incoherence and inconsistency or untidy

arrangements, he said, to avoid splits over issues like gay marriage

or women bishops. Up here in Scotland, there have been several

defections in recent months by Church of Scotland ministers, elders

and members to non-conformist churches because of differences over

gay clergy. Should Christians rise above their differences? Colin

Wilson, good morning all stop we were having a Coffey earlier on.

This issue of gay marriage has troubled youth. You used a memorable

phrase. You said it is reversing gods architecture. What does that

mean? It means the family, the heterosexual family is a basic

building block of any society. What is happening is turning that process

on its head. I think it is probably the biggest piece of social

engineering we have seen. Who knows what the social consequences will

be? What do you think they might be? Back is up for conjecture. We have

departed from God 's basic plan for a healthy society and that is the

problem. Who knows what it will lead to? Do not let them put you off,

Colin. We will hear you out. Let me ask you, it is something of great

concern to you. What if one of your children was gay and married their

partner? Would you attend the wedding? The important thing is to

realise that God loves each one of us. His love is such that he loves

so much, he does not want to leave us as we are. He wants to shape us

into the standards and righteousness and the form of living, into the

belief system, that he has set for us. That is why you left. Regarding

the Church of Scotland, it is ruling beyond the pale. Do you want people

like Colin in your church? As soon as you create systemic division, you

belittle all of us. We should struggle with our difference and

find ways of celebrating it, rather than saying I am in my corner and

you are in yours. I do not agree with Colin but I understand where he

is coming from. I want to work to improve our relationship, rather

than saying, see you later and I am over here. It is not a good moral

for the rest of society. We are an enormously diverse place. You are so

much stronger together, surely? God came to bring unity but unity

between the individual and God. He did not necessarily send Jesus

Christ to create unity amongst society. I know a guy who runs a

place in the occupied territories. He is a Palestinian Christian. He is

surrounded by illegal settlements, who are trying to encroach on his

land. He says to me, I refuse to let those people become my enemies

because he knows if he does that, it is all over. I want us to continue

to do that kind of thing here. It is far better for all of us. The point

is, this is a point for you again, and everybody else. If this is an

abandonment of doctrine, this is such an abandonment of doctrine,

they say you might as well make it a social club. You said that, didn't

you? The key issue is, I work for an organisation promoting unity. We are

about unity of Christians. It cannot be at any cost. If we start to lose

the distinctive things that make us Christians, we kind of loose

everything and we did become a kind of a social club. We become

something which is just about getting together. We can get

together and do some good but there has to be a unity. That is about who

Jesus was, what he taught, what he lived, what he said. The framework

would be around the place in the Bible, the Scriptures. We will have

debates - all sorts of debates within that context. For us, that

has to be the context. The point is, you are both reading Scriptures. You

both read them day and night, one reads black and one reads white. I

understand that the world is full of great as well. For most of Christian

history, the family was not what Christians thought was the highest

weight of God. They thought it was celibacy. There are a number of

equally valid interpretations. The churches have to find a way in which

they can bring together people who have different views. So far, they

never have. Christians have never been able to deal with difference.

It is urgent they find a way of doing that. Why would you want to be

in a church with someone who believes that the earth is 6000

years old who believes that Lot 's wife was turned into a pillar of

salt? My relationship with God is enhanced by my capacity to be able

to love somebody with whom I fundamentally disagree. Those around

me become a better consequence -- become better as a consequence of

that. My son goes to school on Diversity Day. They show us how we

can celebrate diversity and deal with difference. What can I learn

about that and how can I continue to be with people when I disagree with

them? That has to be a better way than to say, I am right, you are

wrong, see you later. What do you want to say to all of this? This is

one of the fundamental issues with religion. In an area like science,

in principle, you can sit down and look at the evidence on either side

and come to a conclusion. Since the only evidence that Christians have

for their beliefs is the interpretation of scripture and some

traditional stuff, and some revelations that people have had,

how can you... ? The evidence shows revelations that people have had,

that about 30%, 40% of the variation in sexuality is shown by genetics.

It is strange that God would have done if it were planned for everyone

to be heterosexual. The men who broke the Bible did not understand

about human sexuality. Why are you laughing? Men wrote the Bible. God

wrote the Bible through men. Men were really God 's mouthpiece. They

put his words onto the paper. Right, OK. You think there has been a

curtailment of freedom of speech, don't you? If you say anything, gay

and lesbians, it is fine but if we say anything, it is shot down in

flames. I have gay friends and they have been friends no problem at

all. Are they your best friends? One of them is very close. One of my

employees is a lesbian and we get on fantastically well. There is no

difference. We have unity. When it comes to the Bible is getting

married, I do believe it is a man and a woman and God has preordained

that. That is the basis of the family. Sexuality should not come

into it at all. Why not? Do you think the Church is

upset with sex? Absolutely. It has caused so much trouble over the

centuries. It has caused so many wars. I could go on and on. I think

they say too much. What would you like to say? Behind you. I will be

coming to you in seconds. I wonder if Cindy believes her good friends

who are gay will go to hell. I believe they are Christians and that

is between them and God. If they have made a commitment for God and

ask for forgiveness, that will be OK. The gentleman at the front was

saying that God wrote the Bible through men. Why were some of the

chapters drop throughout time? How do we know he did not say, two guys

together are all right because they are making a go of it, they are

bringing up children who are orphans. How do you know? Who was

King James the fourth 's Bible? What was that like? The Bible is a book

we need to engage with. The basic problem is that when people come to

the Bible, they put themselves on the same level as God. Almost in a

sense that they are equal to God. There are some things we have to

accept. The word of God we accept by faith. I would concede that. It is

only by faith we will accept the faith. I would concede that. It is

Bible is the Word of God. It is only by faith we will accept that Jesus

Christ is God 's son. Only by faith would we see him like that. I

understand people come to the Bible with their own views. The way the

Bible is read today is different to what it was 100, even 50 years ago.

Is it worth working for people to stay together? A Church that stays

together is more powerful in society. In Matthew, there are clear

rulings that a man should submit to a woman in marriage and divorce is

adultery and therefore a sin. There are a whole range of views taken on

that. The views on divorce of the father of all schisms in Western

Christianity. There is a point where you have to respect each other's

right to take a different view, a different interpretation, and to

work together. I attend Unitarian Church which has the perspective

that your own view of how the universe is ordered, whether there

is a God and all of that, that is your business. While we are here on

us, let's be nice to each other and respect each other. That is a

unifying principle. Some of my closest friends are Christians. I

have a concern that if the Church breaks up into more and more niche

areas with more specific ideas, especially concerning homosexuality,

that will bring up children with more close minded viewpoints.

Considering we live in a society where homosexual teenagers are

committing suicide, is it a good idea to have the church breaking

off? It is said that God created man in

his image. Is it a possibility that humans are creating God in their

image, with their attitude is? Have you done that? I think society, in

general, is trying to create God. Really? By shifting the doctrinally

goalposts? Exactly. As trends change, as fashions change, what is

in flavour today will be outdated tomorrow. And this is the good thing

about the word of God. It doesn't change. It is absolute, total and

comprehensive. It doesn't change? You are shifting with the winds of

liberalism. That's what you're doing. After World War Two, the

Church of Scotland had to grapple with the issues of divorce in a way

it never had had to before, for a number of reasons. It took 11 years

to work it out. It got to a point where they could understand and

accept how that could happen within the context of the faith, and

providing space for those who still struggled with that. The point is,

they took time to do it, because people had to change where they were

coming from. They succeeded, and we can do it again, because our

understanding of ourselves, our world and God has to change, in the

same way that the Bible has changed ever since it was gathered together.

If you think it is absolute, why are you not knocking on the prison door

now saying, free the captives? That is an interpretation. We do that all

the time. We do that in our relationship with God. You are a

humanist. I am. Somebody brought up the question of freedom of speech.

As a humanist, I accept that freedom of speech only counts for something

when you are listening to something you don't want to hear. I am

actually in favour of the split you had, because Colin, I want you

telling everyone every Sunday what they think, so that they can vote

with their feet, and hopefully come to your church instead! Thank you

for that. One of the problems, the big problem is that we have, as the

church sways and follows every wind of doctrine, is that people are

looking for a truth. God isn't happy at the moment? He's never happy! You

have said that God is not happy, and the unhappy God is what -- is with

what we are doing in society. And what will happen is more floods and

things like that? The more we apart from God's standards, the more we

expose ourselves to serious problems, and that can be said right

across the global spectrum. The big problem is that the Church message

is so woolly now that people don't know what to believe. They are

looking for absolutes. Know, people are looking to find the right path

in their own lives through reason and compassion. This is why Humanism

has become so popular, because people have the power to think for

themselves. One more on this. We have other topics to discuss. A

question from earlier on - if one of your children were gay and they

married their gay partner, would you attend the wedding? Yes. Well, there

you are! Thank you all very much for taking part in that one. If you have

something to say in that debate, log onto our website and join in the

discussion online, or on Twitter. We are also debating life today, should

assisted dying be legal? And also, do religions need gods? Please send

us any ideas or thoughts you have about the show. The Scottish

Parliament is currently considering a bill to legalise assisted suicide

for the terminally ill, and those with degenerative conditions. It is

the second attempt by the independent MSP, Margo MacDonald,

who has Parkinson's disease, to give people the right to die. Recent

polls suggest 69% support the measure across Scotland. Should

assisted dying be legal? Leslie, we have to start with you, because he

went with your brother John, who had motor neuron disease, to a clinic in

Switzerland, where they help people to die. Why did you, why did John

think that was the right thing? John thought that he had authority and

control over his life. He thought it was to do with as he saw fit, and as

he was very clearly dying of motoneuron disease, there was no

miracle cure, there was nothing that was going to change the fact that by

the middle of 2003 he was going to be dead. So when he saw the idea of

Dignitas, he couldn't speak or communicate, so he tapped on his

screen, that's the way I would like to go. My reaction was, yes, I will

help you. So in May 2003, we were in that one Mac's small flat in Zurich,

and John literally held out his hand, and in those few moments

between taking the medication and falling asleep, he smiled at us to

say a final goodbye. We were comforted by the fact that he was

dying peacefully and in a very dignified manner, albeit not quite

at the time of his choosing. If he could have had the same treatment in

the UK, he would have lived a few weeks longer, but he had to have the

ball deep -- the bodily strength to get to Switzerland. I have good

memories of that day, of him smiling and sharing a laugh before he died,

because he was happy to be in control at the end. And I believe

from the time that the barbiturate was administrative -- was

administered from the time he slipped away, it was about 20

minutes. Yes, you fall asleep within two or three minutes, so he was so

fast asleep that the he didn't know we were there, but within 20

minutes, his breathing had stopped, his heart had stopped beating, and

those were 20 extra ordinary minutes which I will never forget. What I

will never forget about them was the fact that he literally embrace this

opportunity to end what was, for him, intolerable suffering. And

there was no palliative care that could have eased that? He was unable

to be stand -- he was unable to stand, speak or swallow. For him, it

was a question of living a dignified life that he could take part in. He

could still type with one finger of his left hand, and he could show

some expression on his face, but it was getting to the point where he

would be called a living head on a dead body, no input at all to life.

John didn't want to live like that. He had been a fit, strong, funny,

independent man, and to be reduced to that condition, and to be dying,

meant that, for him, the only solution was to take this way out.

And it was the only out. For him and for us. A light went on in his eyes

when he realised this was a possibility. Very powerful to hear

that. Gordon MacDonald, what Leslie said there was incredibly moving for

everybody. What ever side you are on Mr Bate. But she also said that it

should have been available in this country. -- whatever side you are on

this debate. There is real dangers associated with legalising assisted

suicide, or euthanasia, and the role of Parliament is to take into

consideration all the facts, not just an emotional or difficult

situation, and to consider what is the best for all of society. The

dangers are that people who are depressed or who people who feel

they are a burden on their family or the NHS will come under pressure,

either from external or internal sources, that... The bill makes it

quite clear that mental competence is vital here. This is all about

personal but on me. It is, but the bill doesn't have any mechanism to

ensure that people are not depressed when they access assisted suicide.

The bill has many mechanisms to make sure that the vulnerable are

protected. At the point of registering your interest in having

an assisted suicide, you have to have two separate doctors assessing

new at four independent times. Doctors are very good at telling

when people are depressed, and if there is any level of doubt at all,

they will refuse that person an assisted suicide. So the vulnerable

are protected all the way through, and no one with any interest in that

person's life, anyone who can have any financial gain from their death,

can be involved at any point at all. We believe that friends should be

working at the end to setup a campaign to work on this but also to

share information about it. If you go to our website, everyone can see

all the questions and answers. I just wanted to come in and talk

about the independent living movement, and how they feel about

this. People have been campaigning for the right for legislation for a

assisted living and independent living, and we feel it's not the

time to have this debate just now. At the moment, there's a lot of

disabled people who are being oppressed by the cuts to social care

services, health services, welfare benefit... So a lot of people under

pressure. Yes, and that is what makes life intolerable for people.

As a society, we should be supporting the right to life, and

there are too many dangers and risks with this. There is no right to

death. We talk about choice and autonomy over death, and we would

absolutely support that people have a dignified death. That means that

health services, assisted care services... People talk about life

being intolerable, but it is often external factors in society that

makes life intolerable. The way that the media portrays disabled people.

I just wanted to say that in the last British Social Attitudes

Survey, 70% of people with disabilities supported the right to

choice at the end of life. In Oregon, where assisted dying has

been in place for ten years, there is no reports of pressures for

anyone to end their lives. That is an important point. Everyone uses

the phrase slippery slope. If we go to a certain place here with this.

are talking about. Someone mentioned euthanasia. We're not talking about

euthanasia in the bills. We are talking about assisted dying, where

the patient himself or herself takes the final steps. Why would it not

move further if this were to go through? You mentioned Holland and

Belgium. At the start, these countries had the possibilities of

moving beyond the terminally ill. If you look at Oregon, there's been

absolutely no movement whatsoever in the 16 years the bill has been

placed. There was no suggestion that people have been coerced into taking

an early death. There has been evidence that that has not

happened. As a country that believes in compassion, we ought to be

ashamed and angry that we don't allow people who are dying the

dignity in death that so many seats. -- so many are looking for. For far

too many relatives and grieving friends, the legacy is not of a life

well lived, it is the grim death in difficult circumstances. As a

society, we need to do better, and give people the right to die with

dignity. On the way in today, we saw a big sign saying, this is a home

being built for assisted living. I have huge compassion for people who

have difficult deaths. I am a GP, and I have worked as a doctor for

over 30 years. I have seen many difficult things, but I think the

answer to people having difficult births is to improve the medical

care, the nursing care, and great advances have been made in that in

hospices and other places. There are a small number of cases where

palliative care cannot help. In terms of the strength of legislation

that is talked about, and the safeguards, I am not a lawmaker. I

am a GP who works at the coal face. I look after a large nursing home

with a number of beds. Over the 20 years I have been there, I have

looked after many people who have died and had lots of concerts --

lots of conversations with relatives. Some relatives have said

things like, can you not just to speed this up? This is costing

thousands of pounds a week. My fear would be, if we enacted legislation,

the right to die would lead to a huge problem for all the vulnerable

elderly. I am not in favour of a right to die but I want the dying to

die with dignity. There is absolutely no evidence of any

country which put any pressure on them whatsoever. People who opt for

this feisty individuals with a determination to control their own

destiny. Good luck to them. I have looked after many people like that.

I would like people to die with dignity. Just remember that the

organisation that is now called Dignity is the voluntary euthanasia

Society. They are looking to improve services in palliative care and

generally looking after people as the end of life approaches. I will

come to you in a second. There is this principle of double effect. You

give people drugs, not with the intention of killing them, but

knowing that the consequences may well be that their life ends. That

is while you are easing their pain. There are grey areas. I do not think

that is the case. I help people to die. I do not intend to kill them.

They will die as a result. We will all die. Death and taxes and all

that. I can remember visiting someone at home before we had these

syringes to put into people and doctors used to visit people every

three, four hours. I was visiting an elderly lady and gave her her

injection. Within two minutes, she died. The relatives looked at me...

Tony Nicholson starved himself to death because he was not allowed to

have a dignified death. Which would you rather? Would you rather

somebody had that 20 minutes and just drifted away? I would rather,

as a society, we actually care for people and not kill them. I just

want to correct the doctor. I do wish doctors would keep themselves

up to date. There is no such society as the Voluntary Euthanasia

Society. It disappeared three, four decades ago. I have a great

interest. I became isolated from my family about two decades ago. I

attended a lecture by a gentleman from America telling me how I can

dispose of myself when I choose to go. Unlike this doctor here, I do

not want anything to do with care homes. I have no intention of going

into one. My personal GP knows I am not to be put into a care home. Do

not tell us the process. You know how to do it, and the doctor has

told you... Would you help anyone else to do it? I'd do it all the

time but I am not supposed to give details. How many times have you

done it? I have done it three times already. There is a lady who has

contact me at the present time because she has seen my videos and

other videos and DVDs and she knows she can trust me. The point is that

doctors should not be concerned with this. I sat in the House of Lords in

2003 and heard the lady who was head of the British geriatric

Association. I am sorry, I am 84, I have difficulty in remembering. She

said she does not see why doctors need to be concerned with this at

all. It is nothing to do with doctors. What happens in Oregon, no

doctor is allowed to be in the room and help the person to die. This

talk for years about physician assisted suicide is garbage. It only

occurs in the Netherlands and Belgium. I understand. That was a

fascinating contribution, if I may say so. The doctor still has two

write prescriptions. You cannot exclude them from the process. They

will write these prescriptions under the legislation. A lot has been said

about Oregon. There is a study and evidence was given to the Scottish

Parliament. She found 26% of patients in Oregon where depressed.

That says to me there is a real danger. No matter how many

safeguards you try. Depression is associated with a terminal illness.

I understand that. I do not agree with this gentleman but I am in awe

of his candidness. I would like to know how he feels he can make a

judgment to make that action in a way that we are struggling and

grappling to do for the rest of society? We say that is all OK. It

is a very dangerous precedent to be setting. It is a Rubicon being

crossed. No matter the need your brother felt. That is extremely

dangerous. He has not heard the story. I asked you a question. I

will ask you your question when this is over. Legal compassion does not

allow me to walk away. We accept that. That is a conversation after

we are off air for all sorts of reasons. I think we are all right

now. What would you like to say? This entire discussion has proved we

need a bill like this to pass. It is happening in society. We have proved

it. We need this bill to pass so there is legislation in place for

these people to have the end of life they deserve. The gentleman in the

blue tie. Sky I am a pharmacist, health care professional. I take --

doctors and pharmacists are all bound by a code of ethics. In

pharmacy, we have to make sure a patient is our first concern. There

are a lot of issues around well-being. I totally sympathise

with people who might say, well, people should have a dignified right

to die and all that kind of thing. In the end, I feel this bill flies

in the face of everything, the duties we have to adhere to as

health care professionals. At the end of the day, we should do no

harm. Allowing someone to drive does harm. The doctor who gave this

kitchen for my brother said, as a doctor, my first duty is to preserve

life. In Switzerland, I have an extra duty. I will write a

description to enable you to end your life. They make it work in

Switzerland. In Oregon, doctors are not regarded as murdering monsters.

Health care and social care professionals work OK in Oregon.

Nobody has... The state works well. A lot of people are merely

depressed. People are unhappy they are dying. Depression is part of

their illness. Most of the health care professionals have a great

relationship with patients. That is nonsense as well. It sounds as

though doctors are against this whereas the rest of the population

is in favour of it. I have been a practising doctor all my life and I

am sure that, with terminally ill patients, they should have the right

to determine their own death. Nobody else. How would you limit it to

terminally ill patients? The Bill goes further. What you see is an

incremental extension. That has happened in Belgium this week. There

is no incremental extension within Oregon where there was a terminally

ill Bill, i.e. A dying with dignity act. There has been no extension.

There is a difference with this bill, I wish it well. It does not

represent my bills. -- my views. The bill was proposed a few years ago

and it was up for public consultation. According to

Parliamentary briefing, 86% of responses were proposed. That

included the medical Association and different faith groups, disability

groups. The next bill she has introduced includes people with

progressive conditions. I have to look at the bill in front of me and

not what Bill might be produced several years down the line to amend

but I support it. It is a conscience decision in Parliament and I support

it. I would like to see some amendments. I would like to see

terminal illness cleared up as the thing that is required. I came into

this very sceptical. I believe that life is unique and everyone has a

right to theirs. That is what makes us all equal from Prince to pauper.

The stories that were cared by the first consideration of this bill,

like the kind of things that were going on but we have heard, it

showed the need to have this debate, to have the regulation brought in

and to have this confronted. Rather than putting hands over our eyes and

fingers in our is AMP attended it is not happening. As a parliamentarian,

I cannot be deaf to all of this. Thank you so much for coming in.

We're out of time on this. Thank you very much indeed. You can join in

all this morning 's debates by logging on and joining in the

discussion. Tell us what you think about our last question, do

religions need gods? You can join in all this morning's debates by

logging on to the website and following the link to the online

discussion. Yesterday, many Buddhists celebrated Nirvana Day,

when the 80-year-old enlightened Buddha died and obtained release

from the cycle of death and rebirth. Today around 300 million people

follow the path shown by the Buddha. They believe that leading a moral

life, being mindful of thoughts and actions, and developing wisdom and

understanding is the way to true happiness. But they don't believe in

a god. Do religions need gods? Good morning. You have this concept. The

impact of, . Individually, you are working towards Nirvana,

enlightenment. It is an unguided process. There is no top man, no at

the knee straight. How does that work? -- admin. We can get buried in

semantics. I suspect what Christians might call God, Buddhists would call

nature. If Christians would say something like, the kingdom of God

is within you or the kingdom of heaven is within you, that is what

we call good nature. We all have that and we can access that. That is

why we spend a lot of time in reflection and meditation. Karma is

a word that gets bandied about a lot but it really just means action,

cause and effect. What causes actions and the effect of the

actions. You can apply it to all the previous subjects you have been

talking about. It applies to all of them. There is no God to pray to.

You do not have to and all the sides this principle into being, I do not

know, how you might think of some sun -- someone in heaven with a

beard or something like that. Not as a guide, creator, all seeing, the

Kim Jong Un ill in the sky? The Buddha became fully enlightened. We

all have the same potential to become enlightened. It is our

destiny. I have not heard so much of it in the eight series of The Big

Questions. These are mine to states and get ourselves into. We also have

a Hindu monk. You have similar beliefs but you have a God.

Is that because you need someone to pray to? The understanding that

Hindus have a god is completely different to what is thought about

in religions that have a deity. Hinduism is a belief in a number of

different traditions that are very different. For all of them, there is

a unifying, underlying, all pervasive energy of consciousness,

which is completely different to any chap in the sky playing with us with

puppet strings. The life force? I think I can hear it now! Many people

have referred us back to Star Wars and The Matrix! People were actually

impressed by our philosophy, where it started from. Is it right to say

that you broke away from Buddhism? Actually, it is the other way

around! The original divine revelation for Hindus was in 1500

BC. 95% of it says that this existence had origin in something

that was existing, and 1% says that there wasn't any existence. This is

the tradition that we have. We believe there was existence, but

Buddhists believe there was no existence beforehand. Actually,

that's not correct! Jimmy, you are a seventh day Adventist. How do you

imagine God? God existed first. We don't know how he came to be. How

did you imagine him? We imagine him as a person who loves us very much.

So what does he look like? We have some clues in the Bible. The Bible

writers gave us some ideas by which they attributed some human

attributes. They use stuff that they can relate to. It sounds like a big

invisible person. You think that literally he has an arm? I think

literally he exists, and he is a person. He is not someone we can

just put somewhere and use when we need to. We exist as Christians, and

Christianity exists because of him. The interesting point about 1500 BC.

All of us are using the term BC, which means before Christ.

Interesting to me that Jesus has always been a part of humanity, and

that all of our developed thinking that we have today has much of its

roots... Actually, historians don't use the term BC any more. This is

very interesting, because the social science literature on religion shows

that it doesn't really matter what you believe. When you ask people

about their religious... Can I put something into context? Ani Rinchen

Khandro has, and no God. Bramchari Vrajviran Sharan has karma and a

God. And Jimmy has a God and no karma! And you have nothing! And

proud of it! The social science literature shows that it is all

about your religious participation and your social network that is

built up around your religion, and not about your beliefs. There is no

correlation between mental health benefits and charitable giving

benefits to your religious beliefs, but it is to your social network,

which comes about from your religious participation. That is the

nice thing about things like the humanist Society. They give an

opportunity for community participation, but without all of

the absolute nonsense, not to put too fine a point on it, that we have

just heard! That is a bit disrespectful. Is there something in

our society now that leads people to think that this is possible, the

best bits of religion but no God? Most people in this country believe

there is a God, but only just. The numbers of people who believe in God

are falling. Also the kind of god we believe in is changing, from a

personal God to a spirit. But it is a misconception that most people --

most religious people believe in God. Amongst Anglicans, about two

thirds believe in God. Amongst Jews it's fewer, and amongst Hindus --

amongst Buddhists it's even fewer. Religion is all about identity,

belonging to a group, ethics and practices. For some is it dashed --

for some it is about a belief in God, but not for all. The lady over

here just said we are moving away from a God that is personalised, and

moving into a spirit. I think we are actually going back to spirituality.

If you read back, if you go to some African tribes, they believe in

their ancestry, which is the spiritual aspect of it. We are going

back to spirituality, rather than saying we believe in one God. You

have the spirituality. Do you want a comeback in? I spirituality, did you

mean consciousness? We all have that and it gets a reborn time and time

again. We don't have this idea of before creation and the end of

creation. For us, it is about time without beginning, time without end,

and we are part of that because we are born countless times again. And

you come back as different things? What happens to us depends on us. We

take responsibility for our actions. That is what karma is. It is cause

and effect. It is similar to the Abrahamic religions. A sense of

cause and effect. But not a judgement. It is a law, like

gravity. So according to that law, are people who are born with

disabilities being punished for something they have previously

done? There is no concept of punishment or judgement. Is that

because of something? Everything is due to karma. Is that a yes? It is

not a punishment. There are a lot of things that are unpleasant. Being

born is unpleasant, dying is unpleasant, losing money can be

unpleasant. But talking about reality... What is Nirvana like when

you have had the impact of karma and you reach enlightenment, and you

arrive at Nirvana? It is merging into the energy of the divine

being, which is eternal consciousness and bliss. Have you

touched it? Have you felt it? In our meditations, we do, and we do

believe we can access this. As a Buddhist, I am sure that when you

are meditating, you do access calmness, stillness and bliss. And

that is what we believe. Colin, can I recommend this to you? There is a

verse in the Bible that says that God is a sense of eternity in men's

hearts. And women's heart! Are you all saying the same thing? In a

sense, we are sharing that cost must together in our ideology. But the

discussions have gone in two directions. One is looking for a God

within, and that is very much expressed in what we would call the

New Age movement. Ward is within me, -- God is within me, and I cant.

Dot. -- and I can... And the other thing is to look for God. Your

question was, what does God look like? That is a question we asked

Jesus. Jesus says, if you are seeing me, you are seeing the father. It

has been great listening to all these different ideas about the

nature of our existence, from this extremely diverse society we live

in, Buddhists, Hindus and Christians of all colours. Humanism is all

about the things that unite us and don't divide us. What we should be

doing in this era when religion is in decline, when people don't look

to religion, is look for the need for column -- for common values, the

need to be respected and loved. In terms of religion, I am a Christian.

Religion is a relationship with Jesus Christ. That makes all the

difference, because I believe, as Christians do, that Jesus Christ,

God's son, lived amongst us, do died on the cross, and was resurrected on

the third day. That is unique with regard to face around the world. I

am a Christian, and it is only through faith that we discover this

amazing relationship with God. Ani Rinchen Khandro has an amazing Will

Asian ship with energy. I also have an amazing relationship with Christ.

It's not that I don't believe he existed, or I cannot take guidance

from him. Christ was Jewish. I actually saw him in a vision. What

happened? I was very sick at the time, and Christ appeared, and my

thought was, what are you doing here? As you would! It was odd,

because I was not yet a Buddhist. That is proof there is something in

it, because Christ appeared to her? I would agree. I wrote a book about

angels, and I have quite a lot of experience in that. Have you seen an

angel? I haven't seen one, but I feel the presence of God, and I'm

aware of angels around me. I was in an accident, and a voice said to me,

do not your foot on the brake. I didn't put my foot on the break.

When the AA came, they said, most people would have put their foot on

the brake. Why didn't you? And I said, I believe that God is with me.

That is literally incredible. This discussion shows proportioning your

beliefs to the evidence. There are a number of people who have a number

of beliefs in God and energy, which I didn't realise was a thing! We

keep getting the terminology wrong! The point is, one should always

apportion those beliefs to the evidence, which is what sceptics and

scientists try to do, because otherwise you get into endless

discussions. Only your version of evidence counts. On the last

programme we were on together, you said that you thought consciousness

was evolution. How'd know what you are saying? We are going to have to

end on disharmony. Give them all a round of applause, please! The

debate continues on Twitter. Next week, we are in Oxford, weather

permitting. For now, goodbye, and thanks for watching The Big

Questions.