Episode 18

0:00:02 > 0:00:05Today on The Big Questions, did man create God?

0:00:19 > 0:00:22Good morning. I'm Nicky Campbell, welcome to The Big Questions.

0:00:22 > 0:00:24Today we're back at Wychwood School in Oxford

0:00:24 > 0:00:26to debate one very big question.

0:00:26 > 0:00:30Did man create God? Welcome, everyone, to The Big Questions.

0:00:33 > 0:00:37Now, the dawning of religious belief is suggested

0:00:37 > 0:00:40by the graves of Neanderthals and other early hominids

0:00:40 > 0:00:44who lived between 225,000 and 100,000 years ago.

0:00:44 > 0:00:48By around 10,000 BC, organised religions emerged

0:00:48 > 0:00:51within the first Neolithic cities, states and kingdoms,

0:00:51 > 0:00:54like Gobekli Tepe in what is now Turkey,

0:00:54 > 0:00:58the oldest human-made place of worship yet discovered,

0:00:58 > 0:00:59and the first wooden posts

0:00:59 > 0:01:03were erected at the site of Stonehenge 2,000 years later.

0:01:03 > 0:01:07Hinduism, the world's oldest living religion,

0:01:07 > 0:01:12began to emerge in the Indus Valley around 5,000 years ago.

0:01:12 > 0:01:16Religious beliefs and practices are probably as old as mankind.

0:01:16 > 0:01:21But which came first - man or gods? Did man create God?

0:01:21 > 0:01:25To debate that, we've gathered together a distinguished array

0:01:25 > 0:01:28of theologians, philosophers, psychologists, writers,

0:01:28 > 0:01:31people from various faiths, and of none.

0:01:31 > 0:01:33And you can join in, too, on Twitter,

0:01:33 > 0:01:36or online by logging on to:

0:01:36 > 0:01:39Follow the link to the online discussion,

0:01:39 > 0:01:42and lots of encouragement, contributions,

0:01:42 > 0:01:46from our extremely erudite Oxford audience.

0:01:46 > 0:01:48Bruce Hood, Professor Bruce Hood,

0:01:48 > 0:01:50experimental psychologist, Bristol University.

0:01:50 > 0:01:52- Hi, Bruce.- Hi, Nicky.

0:01:52 > 0:01:56Right, our species, Homo sapiens,

0:01:56 > 0:01:59we emerge from Homo erectus, heidelbergensis, ergaster,

0:01:59 > 0:02:03about 150,000, 100,000 years ago.

0:02:03 > 0:02:05Our brains grew gradually

0:02:05 > 0:02:08and they got to the point that they are at today.

0:02:08 > 0:02:11Why did we start to need to believe?

0:02:11 > 0:02:14Well, we're a social animal,

0:02:14 > 0:02:17and social groups coalesce around belief systems.

0:02:17 > 0:02:19And it's a very powerful mechanism

0:02:19 > 0:02:21to identify who's a member of your group,

0:02:21 > 0:02:24especially if you have to take their beliefs on trust

0:02:24 > 0:02:26in the absence of evidence.

0:02:26 > 0:02:28Our brains have evolved to try and make sense of the world,

0:02:28 > 0:02:30to try and predict it,

0:02:30 > 0:02:32and an unpredictable world is pretty frightening.

0:02:32 > 0:02:35So if you don't know what's going to happen with the crops

0:02:35 > 0:02:36or the migration of animals,

0:02:36 > 0:02:39you might try and engage in some activities to try and control that.

0:02:39 > 0:02:42That's just in our nature to do this.

0:02:42 > 0:02:45So I can see the origins of rituals as serving a purpose,

0:02:45 > 0:02:47to try and explain the world around you,

0:02:47 > 0:02:50but also as a mechanism to kind of coalesce social groups.

0:02:50 > 0:02:53What about dealing with mortality, understanding mortality,

0:02:53 > 0:02:57and finding solace for those we've lost?

0:02:57 > 0:03:00- Was that an important factor, do you think?- Absolutely.

0:03:00 > 0:03:03I think the fact that there were ritual practices and graves,

0:03:03 > 0:03:06there must have been some sense of the afterlife.

0:03:06 > 0:03:08I think most of us still have this urge and need

0:03:08 > 0:03:10to know what's going to happen to us.

0:03:10 > 0:03:12That's never really going to go away.

0:03:12 > 0:03:16And, of course, if someone provides a very good story about what happens

0:03:16 > 0:03:18then that's easily understood and accepted.

0:03:18 > 0:03:21- And we can understand that need. - Yeah.- Very much.

0:03:21 > 0:03:23As we know, if we've lost loved ones.

0:03:23 > 0:03:27So, Professor Teresa Morgan, here's the thing.

0:03:27 > 0:03:30It's a long span of time, isn't it?

0:03:30 > 0:03:33Homo sapiens, 150,000, 100,000 years.

0:03:33 > 0:03:39Why did we, as a species, live until 5,000 years ago

0:03:39 > 0:03:41believing in supernatural forces,

0:03:41 > 0:03:46in animism and river sprites and gods of thunder,

0:03:46 > 0:03:51and it took until then to get the idea of a single creator?

0:03:51 > 0:03:54If God created man, it's a bit late in the day, isn't it?

0:03:54 > 0:03:57We don't know very much about what people thought

0:03:57 > 0:04:00more than 5,000 years ago, because they didn't leave written records,

0:04:00 > 0:04:04so they didn't describe very much about, you know, what they did.

0:04:04 > 0:04:06Actually, I wanted to answer Bruce more directly

0:04:06 > 0:04:10and say that what worries me about that kind of explanation is,

0:04:10 > 0:04:13if you take an example of something else

0:04:13 > 0:04:16that is very important to us, but a bit different from religion,

0:04:16 > 0:04:19something like love, a sociologist can say,

0:04:19 > 0:04:22well, it's all about creating stable social structures,

0:04:22 > 0:04:26and a psychologist can say, well, it's a by-product of evolution,

0:04:26 > 0:04:27or it's a way of creating bonding

0:04:27 > 0:04:30so that parents look after their children, all that.

0:04:30 > 0:04:32But, actually, our own experience of love

0:04:32 > 0:04:35and, say, love that creates a long-term relationship,

0:04:35 > 0:04:37is that it's far more than that.

0:04:37 > 0:04:43And I think explanations of religion that try to explain religion away

0:04:43 > 0:04:47never quite capture the full richness of experience

0:04:47 > 0:04:49of people who believe.

0:04:49 > 0:04:53And so I would say that, you know, there's always a difference

0:04:53 > 0:04:56between the insider and the outsider perspective.

0:04:56 > 0:04:59- Well, I believe in fantasy...- We didn't quite get to the question...

0:04:59 > 0:05:02I appreciate what you're saying. I want to come back to it.

0:05:02 > 0:05:04Arif, do you want to come in here?

0:05:04 > 0:05:07There is a difference between the insider and the outsider perspective

0:05:07 > 0:05:10could be said by anyone who believes any kind of conspiracy theory

0:05:10 > 0:05:13or any of the 99,000 religions which you, presumably,

0:05:13 > 0:05:15and all religious people, believe to be nonsense.

0:05:15 > 0:05:18The other thing I would say is that, of course...

0:05:18 > 0:05:20Two things about what Professor Hood said.

0:05:20 > 0:05:22One of them is that it shows

0:05:22 > 0:05:24that the widespreadness of religious belief,

0:05:24 > 0:05:26there's no evidence whatever for its truth, OK?

0:05:26 > 0:05:28It can be explained in other ways.

0:05:28 > 0:05:30There isn't the slightest reason to believe that.

0:05:30 > 0:05:31The other thing I would say is that

0:05:31 > 0:05:34he doesn't have to show it decisively to be true

0:05:34 > 0:05:35for the purposes of this debate.

0:05:35 > 0:05:38He doesn't have to overcome all the competing scientific theories

0:05:38 > 0:05:40for the purposes of this debate,

0:05:40 > 0:05:44or any sentimentalism about love or other things.

0:05:44 > 0:05:46He has to show that it's more likely

0:05:46 > 0:05:49than people who believe in talking to snakes and resurrection.

0:05:49 > 0:05:52Can I come back to that first point again?

0:05:52 > 0:05:54Can you go with me on this?

0:05:54 > 0:05:58There's lots of evidence of goddesses before

0:05:58 > 0:06:03and many gods and animism and people worshipping animal gods.

0:06:03 > 0:06:05But there is very little evidence

0:06:05 > 0:06:07going back tens of thousands of years

0:06:07 > 0:06:10of worship at monotheistic faith.

0:06:10 > 0:06:13Can you just address this? Say I'm right.

0:06:13 > 0:06:17Why would...? Why would...? A rare occasion!

0:06:17 > 0:06:21Why would the idea of this single divine entity

0:06:21 > 0:06:23come so late to mankind?

0:06:23 > 0:06:26I still think you don't know, actually, whether it did or not.

0:06:26 > 0:06:29- Go with me.- Leaving that aside... - Just pretend. Why would that happen?

0:06:29 > 0:06:32I think you might say in a lot of religious traditions

0:06:32 > 0:06:35that there is a tendency for a sense of multiple divinities

0:06:35 > 0:06:38to coalesce over time into a sense of a single divinity.

0:06:38 > 0:06:42And I think it happens for different reasons. One is that...

0:06:42 > 0:06:45A sort of Bruce-type of explanation might be

0:06:45 > 0:06:47that single divinities are more powerful, more complex,

0:06:47 > 0:06:50and therefore more satisfying, more psychologically satisfying.

0:06:50 > 0:06:53Another reason is that cultures collide

0:06:53 > 0:06:55and get into wars with one another

0:06:55 > 0:06:58and, as it were, you decide that your god is, first of all,

0:06:58 > 0:07:01the strongest among all the local gods.

0:07:01 > 0:07:04You know, there is a little bit of early evidence in the Hebrew Bible,

0:07:04 > 0:07:08for instance, for believers in the God of Israel

0:07:08 > 0:07:11thinking of him as the strongest of local gods.

0:07:11 > 0:07:14- I'm going further back than that. - But that coalesces over time.

0:07:14 > 0:07:18Over time, it develops into the sense there is only one real God.

0:07:18 > 0:07:20- Francesca.- But surely also...- Oh!

0:07:20 > 0:07:23The fact is that monotheist gods do something wonderful,

0:07:23 > 0:07:25which other gods don't do.

0:07:25 > 0:07:27They're wonderful for empires.

0:07:27 > 0:07:31They're wonderful for bringing a whole lot of heterogeneous people together.

0:07:31 > 0:07:33- One flag, one god, one nation. - One god.

0:07:33 > 0:07:36And then you all agree with each other, "This is my guy".

0:07:36 > 0:07:40For empires, that's a crucial thing to be able to do.

0:07:40 > 0:07:41Let me take it back.

0:07:41 > 0:07:45We're navigating some fascinating terrain here.

0:07:45 > 0:07:48Going back, is there evidence of monotheism

0:07:48 > 0:07:51going back 40,000, 50,000, 60,000 years?

0:07:51 > 0:07:56No, but there's evidence of very much smaller groups of deities.

0:07:56 > 0:07:59The question about love I thought was really interesting,

0:07:59 > 0:08:02because of course love is exactly the same

0:08:02 > 0:08:06as a social explanation for belief or religious practice.

0:08:06 > 0:08:08Love is exactly the same. We begin to believe,

0:08:08 > 0:08:11we begin to develop and construct the notion of a deity,

0:08:11 > 0:08:14something beyond us, because of our continuing social bonds

0:08:14 > 0:08:18with the people that have gone, with the dead people, our ancestors.

0:08:18 > 0:08:21And these gods basically become more and more powerful,

0:08:21 > 0:08:23but it's purely because of love.

0:08:23 > 0:08:26We are unable to let go or sever bonds.

0:08:26 > 0:08:28Even those of us that think that's...

0:08:28 > 0:08:31Love is still... It's one of the greatest social...

0:08:31 > 0:08:34It's not just a social tool, we are social beings,

0:08:34 > 0:08:38- and it's what keeps us all together. - I agree with you.

0:08:38 > 0:08:41Elaine Storkey, theologian and author,

0:08:41 > 0:08:44you know, we are social beings, it keeps us together,

0:08:44 > 0:08:48social cohesion, and also, the creation of myths

0:08:48 > 0:08:51and telling stories to each other round the fire,

0:08:51 > 0:08:53the remembrance of those who are gone,

0:08:53 > 0:08:56you can understand the logic

0:08:56 > 0:08:59from this side of the argument about that.

0:08:59 > 0:09:03But if we were created in the image of God, and I know you believe that,

0:09:03 > 0:09:05what about...?

0:09:05 > 0:09:09There's evidence of ritualistic behaviour by Neanderthals.

0:09:09 > 0:09:12Were they, for example, created in the image of God?

0:09:12 > 0:09:15Huh! There are so many things all packed into...

0:09:15 > 0:09:17Take the last question first.

0:09:17 > 0:09:19The last question of a rather rambling question.

0:09:19 > 0:09:22Neanderthals, would they have been created in the image of God?

0:09:22 > 0:09:24- If they were human beings, yes. - They were a species of human beings.

0:09:24 > 0:09:28Yes. I mean, in a sense, does it matter whether they were or not?

0:09:28 > 0:09:29That's the first question.

0:09:29 > 0:09:32I'm agnostic on Neanderthals, completely agnostic.

0:09:32 > 0:09:33What does that mean?

0:09:33 > 0:09:36I believe that they were there at some point in human evolution.

0:09:36 > 0:09:38Same time as us.

0:09:38 > 0:09:40Whether they were human in the same way that we are

0:09:40 > 0:09:41and, therefore, in a sense,

0:09:41 > 0:09:43whether they had the same relationship with God

0:09:43 > 0:09:46that human life has is, for me, questionable.

0:09:46 > 0:09:49- And therefore, I'm agnostic on it. - It's interesting.

0:09:49 > 0:09:51There were four or five species of human on the planet

0:09:51 > 0:09:54at the same time about 50,000 years ago.

0:09:54 > 0:09:55But we are the survive... Bruce.

0:09:55 > 0:09:58The poignant information is that they're still here.

0:09:58 > 0:10:00Genetically, we contain DNA from Neanderthals.

0:10:00 > 0:10:03- Unless you're from Africa. - That's the interesting point.

0:10:03 > 0:10:06- I'd say monotheism predates polytheism.- Ooh!

0:10:06 > 0:10:09Basically, if you took all the Scriptures...

0:10:09 > 0:10:12all the writing of the world and everything, removed it,

0:10:12 > 0:10:155,000 years in the future, people would say,

0:10:15 > 0:10:17well, Islam and Judaism didn't believe in any god

0:10:17 > 0:10:21cos we can't find any statues of the gods of Judaism and Islam.

0:10:21 > 0:10:25- You can.- Well, no, not Judaism, no. I would beg to differ.

0:10:25 > 0:10:28And, of course, if you look at all world religions,

0:10:28 > 0:10:32polytheistic ones, the Mayans and the Egyptians, and so on,

0:10:32 > 0:10:35they always have a head god, they create a god,

0:10:35 > 0:10:37in some cases, not even represented with an image.

0:10:37 > 0:10:42- What I would say is that polytheism is a degeneration of monotheism.- Oh!

0:10:42 > 0:10:45And I think all that the research has shown by...

0:10:45 > 0:10:47some of the research done there,

0:10:47 > 0:10:50have shown that humans have a tendency to believe in superstition

0:10:50 > 0:10:52and anthropomorphise the natural world, yes,

0:10:52 > 0:10:55but it doesn't mean the natural world doesn't exist

0:10:55 > 0:10:57just because humans anthropomorphise...

0:10:57 > 0:11:00The sun exists even though people used to think it was a man or a woman,

0:11:00 > 0:11:03or that the sky was made of a woman, which was an Egyptian belief.

0:11:03 > 0:11:05It doesn't mean that the sky and the sun doesn't exist.

0:11:05 > 0:11:09It means that humans have incorrectly anthropomorphised the natural world

0:11:09 > 0:11:11and they've also incorrectly anthropomorphised God,

0:11:11 > 0:11:13but people come to the conclusion of God

0:11:13 > 0:11:17because God is the rational conclusion based on the problem of causality.

0:11:17 > 0:11:22When you said that polytheism was a degeneration from monotheism...

0:11:22 > 0:11:25There was a comedian once called Frankie Howerd,

0:11:25 > 0:11:27used to go, "Ohhhph!"

0:11:27 > 0:11:29- You just did that, Tim. - I did just do that, yeah.

0:11:29 > 0:11:32And, yeah, I thought when you said, "There's a comedian who used to..."

0:11:32 > 0:11:34and then you pointed at me,

0:11:34 > 0:11:36I thought I was going to be the comedian.

0:11:36 > 0:11:38You can do a turn, if you like.

0:11:38 > 0:11:40Firstly, there's absolutely no evidence

0:11:40 > 0:11:42that monotheism predates polytheism.

0:11:42 > 0:11:45And we need to talk in terms of evidence, don't we?

0:11:45 > 0:11:48We've got to be responsible and rational about this.

0:11:48 > 0:11:49We need evidence.

0:11:49 > 0:11:53The oldest evidence that we have for religious practice is polytheistic.

0:11:53 > 0:11:54The other thing I'd say is that

0:11:54 > 0:11:57we're folding an awful lot in here together.

0:11:57 > 0:11:59Religion is a modern category.

0:11:59 > 0:12:01It's been very well documented, a lot of studies on this.

0:12:01 > 0:12:04Religion is a way of understanding the world that we impose on things.

0:12:04 > 0:12:07All of these things that we're talking about here,

0:12:07 > 0:12:10ritualised behaviour by early Homo sapiens...

0:12:10 > 0:12:13- And other hominids. - And other hominids.

0:12:13 > 0:12:15..civic cult in Ancient Greece,

0:12:15 > 0:12:19modern Islam, Judaeo-Christian monotheism and so forth,

0:12:19 > 0:12:22these are not necessarily the same categories of experience.

0:12:22 > 0:12:24But the one thing that we can tell

0:12:24 > 0:12:27is that all of these categories are socially responsive.

0:12:27 > 0:12:30They reflect the make-up of the society at that time.

0:12:30 > 0:12:33They do things that that society wants them to do.

0:12:33 > 0:12:37So you don't get Islam before Muhammad.

0:12:37 > 0:12:41You don't get sort of proto-forms of Judaism and Christianity

0:12:41 > 0:12:43before these religions emerge.

0:12:43 > 0:12:45They are historical constructs

0:12:45 > 0:12:49and they emerge in that way for a particular reason.

0:12:49 > 0:12:53So the civic religions of Classical Greece

0:12:53 > 0:12:55responded to a civic structure,

0:12:55 > 0:12:57which was basically everyone lived in a city,

0:12:57 > 0:13:00so you needed a religion unifying that city.

0:13:00 > 0:13:04Christianity and Islam emerged in very sort of complex situations,

0:13:04 > 0:13:08but they gained power as part of, as somebody said earlier,

0:13:08 > 0:13:11as part of an imperial system, so they respond very well.

0:13:11 > 0:13:13These centralising religions

0:13:13 > 0:13:16based around a single god who rules everything,

0:13:16 > 0:13:18they're very good allegories of empire.

0:13:18 > 0:13:21They do many other things well. I'm not saying that's all they do.

0:13:21 > 0:13:22But they are socially responsive.

0:13:22 > 0:13:24And if you want one very good piece of evidence

0:13:24 > 0:13:27for the idea that religion is a social construct,

0:13:27 > 0:13:29think, again, about gender, OK,

0:13:29 > 0:13:32the fact that almost every society that we've had so far

0:13:32 > 0:13:33has been male-dominated.

0:13:33 > 0:13:36Almost every religion is male-dominated.

0:13:36 > 0:13:39That is because the two are responding to each other - religion and society.

0:13:41 > 0:13:45- Rabbi Charley, I saw a little twinkle in your eye there.- Yeah.

0:13:45 > 0:13:48I don't have any problem with that,

0:13:48 > 0:13:52as a religious leader, as a rabbi within a congregation

0:13:52 > 0:13:56who's dealing with real people who are scientists, doctors...

0:13:56 > 0:13:59- What about the goddesses? Where are the goddesses?- Yeah...

0:13:59 > 0:14:01I think we're re-putting them back in

0:14:01 > 0:14:05when we perceive God within our modern eyes.

0:14:05 > 0:14:07I don't think that there's a problem

0:14:07 > 0:14:09with the fact that revelation continues

0:14:09 > 0:14:11and that we're, as religious leaders

0:14:11 > 0:14:14or as people who are practising religion within a modern world,

0:14:14 > 0:14:17that we can't have both, that we can't understand

0:14:17 > 0:14:20that the way that we perceive the world is through our own construct,

0:14:20 > 0:14:22because we are human, and so therefore,

0:14:22 > 0:14:25the way that we perceive God and the way that we perceive religion

0:14:25 > 0:14:28is limited by the fact that we're human.

0:14:28 > 0:14:31And so I look at my text and, obviously,

0:14:31 > 0:14:33there are female voices missing.

0:14:33 > 0:14:37But here I am as a woman rabbi in a progressive movement,

0:14:37 > 0:14:40very much a rabbi within Liberal Judaism

0:14:40 > 0:14:44who practises her religion in a way that feels relevant and real to me.

0:14:44 > 0:14:48And that's because I have reconstructed my view of religion

0:14:48 > 0:14:50based on my own context.

0:14:50 > 0:14:52That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist

0:14:52 > 0:14:55because I happen to be limited by my own human powers.

0:14:55 > 0:14:57I know you've...

0:14:57 > 0:15:00Selina O'Grady, author of And Man Created God.

0:15:00 > 0:15:03Where are you coming from on this one?!

0:15:03 > 0:15:06- I would have to say that... - Where are the goddesses?

0:15:06 > 0:15:10The point very articulately put by Tim there, that the mere...

0:15:10 > 0:15:14you know, the manifestation of religion in its womanless form

0:15:14 > 0:15:18- shows that it's created by men, do you buy that?- Yes, I do.

0:15:18 > 0:15:22But I think that the god that we create changes over time,

0:15:22 > 0:15:23so you get a Jewish God that,

0:15:23 > 0:15:25for a particular tribe who've lost their homeland,

0:15:25 > 0:15:28who says, I'm just going to protect you lot,

0:15:28 > 0:15:31and if you obey my rules, I'll give you the Promised Land.

0:15:31 > 0:15:32You get the Roman gods,

0:15:32 > 0:15:35which is based on the client-patron relationship of Rome,

0:15:35 > 0:15:37so you get these huge big patrons,

0:15:37 > 0:15:40if you give them a lamb, with any luck,

0:15:40 > 0:15:42they'll cure your fertility problems or whatever.

0:15:42 > 0:15:46But it's a client-patron relationship on which Rome is based. You get the Christian God...

0:15:46 > 0:15:48I'm surprised that love comes in so early,

0:15:48 > 0:15:50cos in a sense, the Christian God

0:15:50 > 0:15:54- seems to be the first real loving God...- That's ridiculous.

0:15:54 > 0:15:56- These Roman gods...- It's ridiculous! - Absolutely ridiculous.

0:15:56 > 0:16:00These Roman gods do nothing but just give or not give.

0:16:00 > 0:16:01- I think...- Let her finish.

0:16:01 > 0:16:04But the Jewish God, I think, is for a specific people,

0:16:04 > 0:16:06and the thing about the Christian God is...

0:16:06 > 0:16:10This is what Paul does so cleverly, I think, in creating Christianity,

0:16:10 > 0:16:14is to open up that love and protection of a particular tribe

0:16:14 > 0:16:16to a whole group of people

0:16:16 > 0:16:19who are living in the first phase of globalisation, in the Roman Empire,

0:16:19 > 0:16:21where they've lost all sense of community,

0:16:21 > 0:16:23they were in these huge big cities,

0:16:23 > 0:16:26and he gives them a sense of, look, you know, I love you all,

0:16:26 > 0:16:27you love each other all,

0:16:27 > 0:16:31in a way that the Jewish God just goes for this particular group.

0:16:31 > 0:16:33- Then you may open it up. - OK, love. All you need is love.

0:16:33 > 0:16:36- Can you get it in previous gods and goddesses?- Of course you do.

0:16:36 > 0:16:39I think it's incredibly arrogant of any kind of Christian

0:16:39 > 0:16:42- to present their own religion... - I'm not a Christian.

0:16:42 > 0:16:43..or any idea of Christianity

0:16:43 > 0:16:46as being somehow more elevated, something innovative...

0:16:46 > 0:16:50- I'm not saying it's more innovative. It just does it...- It doesn't.

0:16:50 > 0:16:53- Francesca, what are you, a biblical scholar or something?- Exactly.

0:16:53 > 0:16:55- Oh, you are?! Right, OK. - I'm not saying it does it better.

0:16:55 > 0:16:58- Your caricature of the Jewish God... - No, I'm saying...

0:16:58 > 0:17:02- It's...- ..was completely offensive, and I'm amazed that...

0:17:02 > 0:17:05It's such an outdated idea.

0:17:05 > 0:17:08Of course the Jewish God, the God of the Hebrew Bible, is a loving God.

0:17:08 > 0:17:10- Listen... - It's not about particularity,

0:17:10 > 0:17:14and to suggest that Christianity somehow opens up this massive deity

0:17:14 > 0:17:18- to the rest of the world is incredibly outdated and offensive. - That's how the God was tailored.

0:17:18 > 0:17:21THEY TALK OVER EACH OTHER You're all speaking at once.

0:17:21 > 0:17:24Wait. Listen, we're having a civilised

0:17:24 > 0:17:26Sunday morning discussion about God, all right?

0:17:26 > 0:17:32- Listen, what about goddesses? - Can I please just answer this?- OK.

0:17:32 > 0:17:35I'm just saying this is how these gods arrive.

0:17:35 > 0:17:38They arrive to fulfil particular purposes.

0:17:38 > 0:17:41- The Jewish God arrived to fulfil a particular purpose...- I'm sorry.

0:17:41 > 0:17:44- You've completely misunderstood. - Can we just be clear?

0:17:44 > 0:17:47It is a distortion to say that either the God of the Old Testament

0:17:47 > 0:17:51or the God of the New Testament is called loving.

0:17:51 > 0:17:54- I so agree with you.- I can't think of a more spiteful character

0:17:54 > 0:17:56than the Jehovah of the Old Testament.

0:17:56 > 0:18:00- And anyone who looks at the history, for instance, of the Catholic Church...- I'm not talking about...

0:18:00 > 0:18:03OK, everybody. I want to talk about goddesses.

0:18:03 > 0:18:04I want to talk about goddesses.

0:18:04 > 0:18:07It's not a sentence I've said a lot in my life, but I do right now.

0:18:07 > 0:18:10- I say it all the time.- I know. Where are the goddesses?

0:18:10 > 0:18:12Why do the goddesses or goddess

0:18:12 > 0:18:16get squeezed out of the religious equation?

0:18:16 > 0:18:19Partly because the goddesses were massively powerful

0:18:19 > 0:18:22and they played a really important role with the male deities.

0:18:22 > 0:18:24But also because gender in the ancient world,

0:18:24 > 0:18:27including the ancient world from which the Hebrew Bible emerged,

0:18:27 > 0:18:29the world from which the New Testament text emerged,

0:18:29 > 0:18:31their notion of gender was very, very different from ours.

0:18:31 > 0:18:34The deities had a very fluid sense of gender.

0:18:34 > 0:18:36There wasn't just one male and one female gender.

0:18:36 > 0:18:39- Transgender deities.- Exactly.

0:18:39 > 0:18:41And so different deities could perform different roles.

0:18:41 > 0:18:44The goddesses become erased, sometimes literally

0:18:44 > 0:18:47in terms of their statues and their cult objects,

0:18:47 > 0:18:49but sometimes literary as well, from the text.

0:18:49 > 0:18:54They're erased because of this prioritisation of a particular deity

0:18:54 > 0:18:57at a particular political point in a particular time in history.

0:18:57 > 0:18:59As Tim was saying, it's all about politics.

0:18:59 > 0:19:01That's why you get hierarchies.

0:19:01 > 0:19:03When a human society becomes more hierarchal,

0:19:03 > 0:19:06even a very small group, it's basically earning the money,

0:19:06 > 0:19:08you've got one temple, one deity,

0:19:08 > 0:19:10all the money is going to come to that temple.

0:19:10 > 0:19:13Whoever's in charge of the temple is going to have more political power.

0:19:13 > 0:19:15It's a centralisation.

0:19:15 > 0:19:18And that's where the idea of the prioritisation of one deity comes from.

0:19:18 > 0:19:20So the goddesses never disappear.

0:19:20 > 0:19:22People continue to worship the goddesses.

0:19:22 > 0:19:25In one way, she's reinvented, if you like,

0:19:25 > 0:19:28in the figure of Mary, the Queen of Heaven, within Christianity...

0:19:28 > 0:19:31- Oh, dear!- Oh! Oh! Listen...

0:19:31 > 0:19:35Listen! I heard out of the corner of my ear, "Oh, dear!"

0:19:35 > 0:19:38- Elaine Storkey.- I'm sorry, this has been around 30 years.

0:19:38 > 0:19:41It's a tired, wearying concept

0:19:41 > 0:19:44that, somehow, Mary is a reincarnation of a goddess.

0:19:44 > 0:19:48- The Queen of Heaven, her title is a goddess title.- Let me finish.

0:19:48 > 0:19:49I think what we're hearing here...

0:19:49 > 0:19:52And I'm interested in the debate, it's a good debate,

0:19:52 > 0:19:54because we're looking at the social constructions of religion,

0:19:54 > 0:19:57the social constructions of deities and so on.

0:19:57 > 0:19:58And in that sense, of course,

0:19:58 > 0:20:02human beings have been creating gods since time immemorial,

0:20:02 > 0:20:04and they have been worshipping them, bowing down to them,

0:20:04 > 0:20:06they've made them in marble, stone, wood...

0:20:06 > 0:20:09- Or trees. - Trees, suns, moons and so on.- Yes.

0:20:09 > 0:20:11Everything. Male and female.

0:20:11 > 0:20:14All kinds of genitalia going on within the Godhead.

0:20:14 > 0:20:16- You're not wrong. - Spurious relationships.

0:20:16 > 0:20:19You know, really weirdo things going on between...

0:20:19 > 0:20:22One persons weirdo thing is another person's...

0:20:22 > 0:20:24Leaving all that aside, Nicky!

0:20:24 > 0:20:28- We're not interested in your ramifications here!- Yeah.

0:20:28 > 0:20:31So nobody's disputing this. I mean, this...

0:20:31 > 0:20:33Any scholar, any half-baked scholar,

0:20:33 > 0:20:37can go to any book anywhere and find this out.

0:20:37 > 0:20:41- Do you think...?- Let me finish. - Let Elaine finish, please.

0:20:41 > 0:20:44Why are we giving this an enormous intellectual status

0:20:44 > 0:20:47as though, somehow, this solves the problem

0:20:47 > 0:20:49of religion right through the world, and explains who God is?

0:20:49 > 0:20:51They're not half-baked scholars.

0:20:51 > 0:20:53They're The Great British Bake Off, full-on,

0:20:53 > 0:20:55full-wonderful-caked scholars.

0:20:55 > 0:20:58I'm saying any half-baked scholar could find this information.

0:20:58 > 0:21:01But the point is, what we're looking at here

0:21:01 > 0:21:02are epistemological questions,

0:21:02 > 0:21:05questions about how we know, how we do our research,

0:21:05 > 0:21:08what kind of research do we do and what methodology do we use?

0:21:08 > 0:21:11Actually, the questions about God are ontological questions,

0:21:11 > 0:21:15about the whole nature of being, what is it to have a divine being,

0:21:15 > 0:21:17and what does that divine being look like?

0:21:17 > 0:21:20And that divine being is not something we can create.

0:21:20 > 0:21:23As little Olivia, 12-year-old, said to her mother the other day,

0:21:23 > 0:21:27"We just don't have the intelligence to create a creator.

0:21:27 > 0:21:30"We're only mortal human beings with mortal minds."

0:21:30 > 0:21:32On which point... On which point...

0:21:32 > 0:21:35- Don't worry, everyone, there's time.- Nice line.

0:21:35 > 0:21:37I think it's the perfect segue now

0:21:37 > 0:21:44into a representative of the oldest existing religion on earth.

0:21:44 > 0:21:46No, it's not you, Abdullah.

0:21:46 > 0:21:51It is... It is our Hindu representative, Satish Sharma,

0:21:51 > 0:21:55general secretary of the National Council of Hindu Temples.

0:21:55 > 0:21:57Oldest existing religion.

0:21:57 > 0:22:00So, when Hinduism first emerged,

0:22:00 > 0:22:05would it have been by revelation, by intuition...?

0:22:05 > 0:22:07I mean, how?

0:22:07 > 0:22:09It's been difficult to sit here,

0:22:09 > 0:22:13but it's always good fun to see our adolescents at play!

0:22:16 > 0:22:18I'll just share the lens

0:22:18 > 0:22:21through which all of this discussion has happened so far.

0:22:21 > 0:22:24What about the question I just asked you? Never mind lenses.

0:22:24 > 0:22:27- Never mind lenses. - OK, very straightforward.- Yeah.

0:22:27 > 0:22:29We have a tradition which says that mystics

0:22:29 > 0:22:31are always followed by miscreants.

0:22:31 > 0:22:33And so far in the discussions,

0:22:33 > 0:22:36we haven't really touched on the notion of a mystical experience.

0:22:36 > 0:22:38In our earliest records,

0:22:38 > 0:22:41there are records which are recorded by mystics,

0:22:41 > 0:22:43and in terms of our timeframe,

0:22:43 > 0:22:45we go back a little bit further than that.

0:22:45 > 0:22:49We celebrated 5,154 years of the articulation

0:22:49 > 0:22:51of one of our core central texts,

0:22:51 > 0:22:54because there are astronomical references within it

0:22:54 > 0:22:55which help us to define timeframes.

0:22:55 > 0:22:58So we work on a different cosmology and a different timeframe.

0:22:58 > 0:23:01But this notion that mystics are always followed by miscreants

0:23:01 > 0:23:02is very, very valuable.

0:23:02 > 0:23:05There is... There is an established tradition.

0:23:05 > 0:23:08We have thousands of books, and they're all the records of people

0:23:08 > 0:23:11who have engaged in some sort of a practice

0:23:11 > 0:23:15involving them introverting and connecting with a sense of union

0:23:15 > 0:23:19with every other creature on the planet, and the planet itself.

0:23:19 > 0:23:22And they've tried to articulate that.

0:23:22 > 0:23:24But when you articulate a personal experience

0:23:24 > 0:23:26to people who haven't had that experience,

0:23:26 > 0:23:28their chattering minds get involved.

0:23:28 > 0:23:30And so that's where the miscreants come.

0:23:30 > 0:23:34And there are always miscreants who are happy to leverage the adulation

0:23:34 > 0:23:38that mystics seem to get for political purposes.

0:23:38 > 0:23:41So we have a precision that we need to...that we would apply,

0:23:41 > 0:23:43and that is, you use the term "religion".

0:23:43 > 0:23:45We would say that when you say "religion",

0:23:45 > 0:23:48you're actually discussing theocracies.

0:23:48 > 0:23:51Our perspective is that theocracies are merely dictatorships

0:23:51 > 0:23:55with an invisible, immortal dictator who cannot be deposed.

0:23:55 > 0:23:56And they're the ideal tool

0:23:56 > 0:23:59for anybody wanting to exert political power.

0:23:59 > 0:24:01- So we would separate... - We've had a bit of that so far.

0:24:01 > 0:24:04Absolutely, and it's actually very relevant,

0:24:04 > 0:24:08because at this time, we have two theocracies, from our perspective,

0:24:08 > 0:24:11battling for primacy of power on the earth

0:24:11 > 0:24:13and, indeed, in this country.

0:24:13 > 0:24:16It's wonderful here. We have a tradition of democracy

0:24:16 > 0:24:18which is battling with theocracy as well.

0:24:18 > 0:24:20The House of Commons was established

0:24:20 > 0:24:22as a challenge to the Church of England.

0:24:22 > 0:24:25- And autocracy, throw that one in. - Yeah. Absolutely.

0:24:25 > 0:24:29But the notion of the mystical experiences has primacy with us.

0:24:29 > 0:24:31Once a person's had a mystical experience

0:24:31 > 0:24:33then you recognise that, actually,

0:24:33 > 0:24:35that mystical experience represents itself

0:24:35 > 0:24:37in a gender-free environment.

0:24:37 > 0:24:40Our tradition... 5,000 years.

0:24:40 > 0:24:42We would say a lot more than 5,000 years,

0:24:42 > 0:24:44We have never had a theocracy in India.

0:24:44 > 0:24:46And that's because of the multiplicity,

0:24:46 > 0:24:49the pure democracy of how you wish to engage...

0:24:49 > 0:24:51- Like the caste system. - ..with divinity.

0:24:51 > 0:24:52Well, "caste" is a Portuguese word,

0:24:52 > 0:24:55and like all words, words have concepts behind them.

0:24:55 > 0:24:58There is no word in the Indian, Sanskrit,

0:24:58 > 0:25:00or, indeed, the Hindu vocabulary for "caste".

0:25:00 > 0:25:03I would share with you that caste is something that was exported to India

0:25:03 > 0:25:06and it has no place in the Indian Scriptures...

0:25:06 > 0:25:08- Still got it, though. - ..nor, indeed, practice.- Arif.

0:25:08 > 0:25:12I think Satish actually put his finger on an important distinction,

0:25:12 > 0:25:15that there is a difference between the sort of votive side of religion

0:25:15 > 0:25:17and the mystery side of religion,

0:25:17 > 0:25:19the side which involves social interactions,

0:25:19 > 0:25:22and the side which involves a kind of inner experience.

0:25:22 > 0:25:25And it's true that a lot of these explanations we've been discussing

0:25:25 > 0:25:27are to do with religion as a social phenomenon.

0:25:27 > 0:25:30But there is something else as well, which is the mystical experience.

0:25:30 > 0:25:33But that's not to say that that has got no explanation.

0:25:33 > 0:25:36There's a variety of competing psychological explanations for that

0:25:36 > 0:25:38to do with behaviour of the temporal lobes

0:25:38 > 0:25:40and various other sorts of theories.

0:25:40 > 0:25:42Many of them... Certainly one of them is true,

0:25:42 > 0:25:44and many of them have a great deal more plausibility

0:25:44 > 0:25:47than the idea that any religious claim is true.

0:25:47 > 0:25:48I think the conclusion would be

0:25:48 > 0:25:50that religion has a variety of explanations

0:25:50 > 0:25:53because it covers a variety of phenomena.

0:25:53 > 0:25:58- I wouldn't dream...- OK, I want to just move it on slightly.

0:25:58 > 0:26:00But, Selina, you have been trying to jump back in.

0:26:00 > 0:26:04- I'd love to say two things. - Let me make an announcement.

0:26:04 > 0:26:07We're going to talk about the relationship between religions

0:26:07 > 0:26:09and god and no god in just a second.

0:26:09 > 0:26:13You've led us very nicely into it, Satish, organised religion.

0:26:13 > 0:26:17Meanwhile... You've been very desperate to say something.

0:26:17 > 0:26:18I want to say two things.

0:26:18 > 0:26:22One is that Isis was a goddess and she did incredibly well.

0:26:22 > 0:26:24She really was a kind of...

0:26:24 > 0:26:28It felt like a sort of religion that was going to do far better

0:26:28 > 0:26:31than this little Christian Jesus cult.

0:26:31 > 0:26:35- What happened?- She didn't do it as well as...- Do what?

0:26:35 > 0:26:38..as Jesus and Christianity did under Paul.

0:26:38 > 0:26:40Which is, she started addressing these questions

0:26:40 > 0:26:44of a personal relationship with her devotee,

0:26:44 > 0:26:46of promising some kind of afterlife, it wasn't quite clear

0:26:46 > 0:26:49whether it was going to be just longer life or afterlife,

0:26:49 > 0:26:52of giving you a sense of community, of doing all these things.

0:26:52 > 0:26:54But that little Jewish cult under Paul

0:26:54 > 0:26:56did all this much, much better, and gave you...

0:26:56 > 0:26:59Which I think Teresa kind of didn't say,

0:26:59 > 0:27:02you know, why we need God and why God is there,

0:27:02 > 0:27:04which is a sense of aughts.

0:27:04 > 0:27:06That's what religions do so well,

0:27:06 > 0:27:09which is actually give you a sense of values

0:27:09 > 0:27:11and how you should lead your life.

0:27:11 > 0:27:14PEOPLE TALK AT ONCE Was she not apocalyptic?

0:27:14 > 0:27:17- No, she's very much... - No, that's the other Isis.

0:27:17 > 0:27:21- Christ was an apocalypticist, wasn't he?- Absolutely.

0:27:21 > 0:27:24- Well...- There's lots of evidence that Christ was an apocalypticist.

0:27:24 > 0:27:27In the sense that he was a Messiah and the end of the world would come.

0:27:27 > 0:27:30- In your time, he said to his disciples.- In your time.

0:27:30 > 0:27:32And he got that wrong.

0:27:32 > 0:27:35- Cole Moreton, haven't heard from Cole yet.- Yeah.

0:27:35 > 0:27:38You're a very, very intelligent man and a marvellous writer.

0:27:38 > 0:27:41You're not a great fan of religions. You're not a great fan of religions.

0:27:41 > 0:27:44- But you're a big fan of God, I know that, that's fair to say.- Mm-hm.

0:27:44 > 0:27:48If there is no God, can you understand the logic

0:27:48 > 0:27:51of the development of religion in our mind?

0:27:51 > 0:27:52Absolutely I can.

0:27:52 > 0:27:55I'm not a theologian or a scientist, I'm just a storyteller.

0:27:55 > 0:27:57And I know that when you start to tell a story,

0:27:57 > 0:27:59one of the things that happens next

0:27:59 > 0:28:01is that people begin to take control of the story.

0:28:01 > 0:28:03They say, "This is my story,"

0:28:03 > 0:28:06and maybe it forms their community, maybe it forms their identity,

0:28:06 > 0:28:08maybe they go to war on the basis of it.

0:28:08 > 0:28:11And what we have seen in religion is, we've seen that...

0:28:11 > 0:28:14One of the reasons why we talked about the goddess,

0:28:14 > 0:28:15one of the reasons why the goddess

0:28:15 > 0:28:17is very popular in contemporary culture,

0:28:17 > 0:28:20why neopaganism is embracing the goddess in a big way,

0:28:20 > 0:28:22is because we've had many, many years

0:28:22 > 0:28:24of patriarchal, oppressive religions.

0:28:24 > 0:28:27So that is bubbling up, and we're seeing that.

0:28:27 > 0:28:29But we're now also in a place

0:28:29 > 0:28:32where one of the stories that people are telling is...

0:28:32 > 0:28:37We actually have grown up, we understand the world better,

0:28:37 > 0:28:40we can do all of this on the basis of rationality and science.

0:28:40 > 0:28:42And therefore, as you said earlier,

0:28:42 > 0:28:44all of these stories from all of these places

0:28:44 > 0:28:47have now got to be judged on the basis of science.

0:28:47 > 0:28:50Well, that's another perspective. It's another act of faith.

0:28:50 > 0:28:54- And when I think... - It's not an act of faith, Cole.

0:28:54 > 0:28:55It's empirical.

0:28:55 > 0:29:00OK, I mean, if you're telling me that you think that science

0:29:00 > 0:29:03- ultimately contains all of the answers...- Science works.

0:29:03 > 0:29:05- Praying doesn't. - I'm not talking about working.

0:29:05 > 0:29:08Science is tentative, that's the beauty of science.

0:29:08 > 0:29:11It is, when it's done properly. But what I'm talking about is...

0:29:11 > 0:29:13It's continued, it's tested and it survived.

0:29:13 > 0:29:17We can describe what is happening in front of us in all of these different ways,

0:29:17 > 0:29:19but that doesn't take away the sense of mystery,

0:29:19 > 0:29:21the sense of there is something else.

0:29:21 > 0:29:25It may be that all of these competing stories have an element of truth in their own way.

0:29:25 > 0:29:28What they're not doing is revealing to us what mystery...

0:29:28 > 0:29:30Cole, aren't you in danger of falling into the notorious

0:29:30 > 0:29:32"God of the gaps" here?

0:29:32 > 0:29:34That once upon a time they were saying,

0:29:34 > 0:29:35there's always going to be mystery,

0:29:35 > 0:29:38we're never going to understand what thunder is.

0:29:38 > 0:29:40Then they understand it and the gap moves elsewhere.

0:29:40 > 0:29:43Subatomic world. We're never going to understand the subatomic world.

0:29:43 > 0:29:45- No, I embrace it. - That's where God is.

0:29:45 > 0:29:47Then when we understand the subatomic world,

0:29:47 > 0:29:49you've got a problem.

0:29:49 > 0:29:53Yeah, well, 96% of matter, we don't know what it is at the moment.

0:29:53 > 0:29:55- But when we do...- When you go...

0:29:55 > 0:29:57When you go subatomic, the mystery widens.

0:29:57 > 0:30:00When you go cosmic, the mystery widens.

0:30:00 > 0:30:02- I want to...- The gaps are moving.

0:30:02 > 0:30:04I want to tell you something from the Indus Valley.

0:30:04 > 0:30:08This is my favourite story about this. There's six blind men.

0:30:08 > 0:30:12They're blindfolded in a room and they're holding on to this creature.

0:30:12 > 0:30:17And they say, "What is this creature?" And one of them says, "Well, it feels like a rope."

0:30:17 > 0:30:21Another one says it feels like a sail. Another one says it feels like a great big tree trunk.

0:30:21 > 0:30:24They're all grasping onto different aspects of an elephant.

0:30:24 > 0:30:26The elephant is still there,

0:30:26 > 0:30:29even while they're arguing about what the elephant is really like.

0:30:29 > 0:30:31The message is, be careful what you grasp, especially if...!

0:30:31 > 0:30:34Arif, do you want to come back in here? Science.

0:30:34 > 0:30:37- Yeah, one thing I would say about... - Then we'll move on to religion.

0:30:37 > 0:30:40Of course there have been thousands of gaps,

0:30:40 > 0:30:42as in things we couldn't explain the time.

0:30:42 > 0:30:46Every single one of them that has been explained by science hasn't been explained by religion,

0:30:46 > 0:30:49so we've got about as good evidence as you could possibly have.

0:30:49 > 0:30:54No gap concerning our understanding can be filled by religious beliefs.

0:30:54 > 0:30:57On the point about mystery, I agree that, in a sense, one needn't be

0:30:57 > 0:30:59a materialist or something.

0:30:59 > 0:31:02You can certainly think that there are other things in life.

0:31:02 > 0:31:04There are things that have value to people and so on,

0:31:04 > 0:31:06but people can have value for each other.

0:31:06 > 0:31:09People can care about things that matter, like music, the arts

0:31:09 > 0:31:12or science, one another, personal relationships, political activism.

0:31:12 > 0:31:15There are so many things in life that can give life...

0:31:15 > 0:31:17What you're doing...

0:31:17 > 0:31:20What you are doing - you're doing the same as the religions

0:31:20 > 0:31:23are doing, in claiming, "This is my story and my story is true."

0:31:23 > 0:31:25- No, no, that's... - I want to move on to...

0:31:25 > 0:31:28We can pick up on monotheism and religions in general.

0:31:28 > 0:31:31Islam, the new kid on the block, Abdullah,

0:31:31 > 0:31:36- came along very recently and is... - Only for a couple of years!

0:31:36 > 0:31:39Well, you've been coming on the show for about three years.

0:31:39 > 0:31:42But Islam itself came along, what, seventh century,

0:31:42 > 0:31:47- was it something out that? - Yeah.- 670, something like that.

0:31:47 > 0:31:50And so, basically, we got this monotheism...

0:31:50 > 0:31:53We've had mention of this already - it's a great means

0:31:53 > 0:31:57of political control and empire building, isn't it?

0:31:57 > 0:32:01You know, the Islamic Empire - one flag, one empire, one nation,

0:32:01 > 0:32:03- one people...- It wasn't really an empire, though.

0:32:03 > 0:32:07Well, it turned into an empire after that. But you can understand the logic, can't you,

0:32:07 > 0:32:09taking it away from your religious belief?

0:32:09 > 0:32:11You can understand the logic of...

0:32:11 > 0:32:15- And the politically efficacious nature of monotheism.- Not really.

0:32:15 > 0:32:18People can believe in the same god and be divided. It doesn't make any difference.

0:32:18 > 0:32:23- It's better than polytheism. What's the difference?- But the point I've been trying to highlight

0:32:23 > 0:32:26is, firstly, science itself is limited to the natural world,

0:32:26 > 0:32:30and we don't put religion into the natural world in terms of...

0:32:30 > 0:32:33At least, Muslims and Jews and others don't put religion

0:32:33 > 0:32:36into natural science, saying, "This is miraculous here, here and here."

0:32:36 > 0:32:39Religion... Science is limited to the goldfish bowl of its universe.

0:32:39 > 0:32:41An opaque goldfish bowl.

0:32:41 > 0:32:44And there's these two atheist goldfish inside this goldfish bowl

0:32:44 > 0:32:46who think there is nothing outside this goldfish bowl.

0:32:46 > 0:32:49But, rationally, you can deduce there must be something outside it,

0:32:49 > 0:32:55and this is where rationality and a pure atheist empiricism clash.

0:32:55 > 0:32:57I want to talk less about that

0:32:57 > 0:33:00than the development of religious and social control.

0:33:00 > 0:33:01Well, the thing is this...

0:33:01 > 0:33:04- Military control.- Well, the thing is, we approach history

0:33:04 > 0:33:06with an anachronistic secular kind of perspective.

0:33:06 > 0:33:10In the Indian culture, for example, dharma was, I suppose,

0:33:10 > 0:33:14what they would call their entire culture. Dharma meaning law.

0:33:14 > 0:33:16And, of course, the Torah, the word means law as well.

0:33:16 > 0:33:21- Law...- Religion, culture, law, were all one and the same thing.

0:33:21 > 0:33:23Secularism is a very modern construct.

0:33:23 > 0:33:25People didn't divide religion here.

0:33:25 > 0:33:27Every country, in a way,

0:33:27 > 0:33:30or every civilisation, was a "theocracy" in that sense,

0:33:30 > 0:33:34because everyone's politics was driven by their morals, which was

0:33:34 > 0:33:38driven by their belief in afterlife, in gods, in cosmology and so on.

0:33:38 > 0:33:40- And the modern day...- And conquest.

0:33:40 > 0:33:44- And modern day religion that controls people is nationalism, I would say.- Yeah.

0:33:44 > 0:33:48Because you get the current ruling party telling us

0:33:48 > 0:33:51you have to follow British values to unite this country...

0:33:51 > 0:33:54- Another debate!- Exactly! But that's also...

0:33:54 > 0:33:57- You could argue that also means... - Let me try it again.

0:33:57 > 0:34:02Teresa Morgan, in terms of social control, Teresa, for rulers,

0:34:02 > 0:34:06for chiefs, for kings, for...

0:34:06 > 0:34:10for tribal chiefs, whatever, religion is handy, isn't it?

0:34:10 > 0:34:12Oh, no question. Religion is very handy.

0:34:12 > 0:34:16But anybody can use more or less anything to exert social control.

0:34:16 > 0:34:21I mean, democracy is a value which autocrats

0:34:21 > 0:34:24can subvert for their own use. Autocrats can...

0:34:24 > 0:34:26- It doesn't invalidate the premise. - It doesn't.

0:34:26 > 0:34:29So in a sense that's neither here nor there. I think, in a way,

0:34:29 > 0:34:33you are underestimating the extent to which religions are also

0:34:33 > 0:34:37countercultural and demand things of their adherents

0:34:37 > 0:34:41that are unexpected and often, on the face of it, unhelpful.

0:34:41 > 0:34:45I mean, I certainly feel that in trying seriously to follow my

0:34:45 > 0:34:48own faith tradition in my daily job, I am constantly shooting myself

0:34:48 > 0:34:52in the foot and doing things that actually will not serve me well...

0:34:52 > 0:34:55- Jesus Christ himself was extremely bothersome, wasn't he?- Quite!

0:34:55 > 0:34:58Didn't do him a bit of good. But I mean, so...

0:34:58 > 0:35:01And that's even true of traditions like Greek

0:35:01 > 0:35:07and Roman traditions, I think - Tim may disagree with me - which...

0:35:07 > 0:35:11it is easy for us to think about in rather socially reductionist terms

0:35:11 > 0:35:14as reflecting and serving social and political systems

0:35:14 > 0:35:18because there are no longer living believers in the systems

0:35:18 > 0:35:20to kind of give a different view.

0:35:20 > 0:35:25But if you think, for instance, about a concept like justice

0:35:25 > 0:35:29in the Greek world, it has several different ranges of meaning.

0:35:29 > 0:35:32Justice can mean what is socially normative -

0:35:32 > 0:35:35whatever the mass of people think, it's OK.

0:35:35 > 0:35:39It can mean what the law says is OK, which may not be the same as

0:35:39 > 0:35:42public opinion or what the current leaders of the city would want.

0:35:42 > 0:35:45Or it can mean what the gods think is justice,

0:35:45 > 0:35:48and Greeks often struggled a lot

0:35:48 > 0:35:51with their sense of what the gods thought justice was,

0:35:51 > 0:35:54which didn't always fit with their sense of justice at all,

0:35:54 > 0:35:59either because it was too demanding or because it looked actually cruel or random. Both those.

0:35:59 > 0:36:02People protested against the justice of the gods both that it's cruel,

0:36:02 > 0:36:05that it doesn't fit what we would hope for, but also that

0:36:05 > 0:36:08it's too high a standard for us to kind of aspire to.

0:36:08 > 0:36:11- So in all sorts of ways... - God knows best.- Hm.

0:36:11 > 0:36:15So all sorts of... And it's true all the way through the Hebrew Bible,

0:36:15 > 0:36:19it's true in Christian traditions, certainly the traditions that I know a bit more about.

0:36:19 > 0:36:21But they can be intensely demanding

0:36:21 > 0:36:25from a perspective wholly outside society's norms, actually.

0:36:25 > 0:36:28Tim, you were mentioned... in dispatches...

0:36:28 > 0:36:30I actually agree with a lot of that.

0:36:30 > 0:36:33I mean, I do think that the issue is not

0:36:33 > 0:36:39whether religion can only be used by dominant forces in society.

0:36:39 > 0:36:42I mean, if you believe religion is a social construct, which I do,

0:36:42 > 0:36:46then clearly it follows that societies are much more than

0:36:46 > 0:36:49their dominant forces. We see it in the modern world, we see it

0:36:49 > 0:36:53when we talk about liberation theology, salafism, anything like this.

0:36:53 > 0:36:56There are ways of being countercultural through

0:36:56 > 0:36:57the religious idiom.

0:36:57 > 0:37:00But that doesn't necessarily mean that religion...

0:37:00 > 0:37:03So the question really is here, what is driving what?

0:37:03 > 0:37:06And I think that's the... I'm quite open-minded about this, actually.

0:37:06 > 0:37:09But the question is whether religion is something that we can

0:37:09 > 0:37:12identify as distinct from society, that somehow stands behind it

0:37:12 > 0:37:15and pushes it forward, which seems to me

0:37:15 > 0:37:17more of a kind of believers' point of view,

0:37:17 > 0:37:20or whether, as I would see it, religion is actually

0:37:20 > 0:37:22part of the idiom of a given society

0:37:22 > 0:37:25and is the flexible medium that can be used by different people

0:37:25 > 0:37:29for different purposes, because, yeah, societies are complicated.

0:37:29 > 0:37:34- Rupert, we haven't heard from you yet.- Hello!- Hello. Hello, welcome.

0:37:34 > 0:37:38As we're on religion, isn't the inevitable consequence

0:37:38 > 0:37:43of monotheism an in group and an out group, them and us?

0:37:43 > 0:37:45We know the truth and they don't.

0:37:45 > 0:37:46No, absolutely not.

0:37:46 > 0:37:50I mean, one of the questionable statements made so far today is,

0:37:50 > 0:37:57"If I think my religion is right then the other 99,000 are wrong."

0:37:57 > 0:38:02I think, on the contrary, it's the consequence of believing in...

0:38:02 > 0:38:08that we're all made in the image of God that makes...

0:38:08 > 0:38:14the core element of Christianity...

0:38:14 > 0:38:17What I take away from the story of the lost sheep is that

0:38:17 > 0:38:20- it's actually people who are outside...- But we've had countless

0:38:20 > 0:38:24people over the years of all faiths who have been strict adherents to...

0:38:24 > 0:38:27Not everybody, of course, but certain faiths

0:38:27 > 0:38:30are strict adherents to the thought that they are right.

0:38:30 > 0:38:33- Theirs is the only way and everyone else is wrong. - Yes, I'm not saying...

0:38:33 > 0:38:36The Catholic Church was notorious for killing heretics.

0:38:36 > 0:38:40Absolutely. I'm not saying that the message hasn't been corrupted.

0:38:40 > 0:38:43I'm going to a slightly higher authority in what

0:38:43 > 0:38:47- I believe about God... - ..Defend religion by pretending that what you want

0:38:47 > 0:38:51its message to be has been corrupted by the way it's played out in history.

0:38:51 > 0:38:55- That is disingenuous!- No, it's true. - It's not, it's very disingenuous. And I'll tell you why.

0:38:55 > 0:38:59It's hard to think of any statement that's more historically verified...

0:38:59 > 0:39:03- into religious disagreement. - It's disingenuous to take the institution of religion

0:39:03 > 0:39:07and judge a set of beliefs on the basis of what people have done

0:39:07 > 0:39:09in that institution is disingenuous.

0:39:09 > 0:39:12What Rupert is talking about is what his particular religion

0:39:12 > 0:39:15calls us to, which is a higher kind of love.

0:39:15 > 0:39:19- And, actually, the two things are completely... - A higher love than what?

0:39:19 > 0:39:20Um...

0:39:20 > 0:39:24- You know, if you... Well, Rupert can answer that.- Rupert.

0:39:24 > 0:39:30It's the priority of the outsider, I think, the idea that...

0:39:30 > 0:39:34I mean, the Church is sometimes said to be the one organisation

0:39:34 > 0:39:38that exists for the sake of its non-members. And when...

0:39:38 > 0:39:44When Jesus' teaching is being taken seriously, I mean,

0:39:44 > 0:39:46that's the question...

0:39:46 > 0:39:49Good heavens, it's because I'm Christian that I've got

0:39:49 > 0:39:53fairly robust views on the dysfunctionality of the Church.

0:39:53 > 0:39:58But when the Gospel is taken seriously, then...

0:39:58 > 0:40:04the message, surely no-one would deny that at the core of Jesus' message,

0:40:04 > 0:40:08whether one accepts it or not, is one of radical self-giving love.

0:40:08 > 0:40:10Then it's not about them and us.

0:40:10 > 0:40:13Some thoughts in the audience. The gentleman there.

0:40:13 > 0:40:15Hello, you, on you go.

0:40:15 > 0:40:18- So, essentially... - Quick points, please.

0:40:18 > 0:40:21It seems to me that the question, "Did man create God?"

0:40:21 > 0:40:24what the honourable rabbi said earlier is very important.

0:40:24 > 0:40:26Ultimately, any conception of God that we have is going to be

0:40:26 > 0:40:30through our hearts and minds, through two ears, one nose, two eyes, one brain.

0:40:30 > 0:40:34- And so...- Two brains, the case of some...- Two brains, of course.

0:40:34 > 0:40:36Maybe two brains in the front row. But...

0:40:36 > 0:40:40It seems that obviously it's going to be anthropomorphised,

0:40:40 > 0:40:42so the question then becomes, "Does God exist?"

0:40:42 > 0:40:44which is, of course, an impossible question.

0:40:44 > 0:40:47And I think although this question is important,

0:40:47 > 0:40:51what might be more worthwhile asking is, how does God -

0:40:51 > 0:40:55whatever we mean by God - realise himself in our hearts and minds?

0:40:55 > 0:40:58- And, and... - It's too late, we're 40 minutes in!

0:40:58 > 0:41:02But, yes, this is interesting about social constructs and so forth.

0:41:02 > 0:41:04The lady in the red top, a quick point from you, go on.

0:41:04 > 0:41:08Just going off the point he just made, "Does God exist?"

0:41:08 > 0:41:11I don't believe it's an impossible question to answer, it's just that

0:41:11 > 0:41:15it's whether or not people want to believe that God exists or not.

0:41:15 > 0:41:18And I believe that the evidence of God is all around us

0:41:18 > 0:41:22if only we were to open up our eyes and accept that.

0:41:22 > 0:41:24APPLAUSE

0:41:24 > 0:41:29Bruce Hood, what does the concept of a divine judge,

0:41:29 > 0:41:30if you've been good, if you've been bad,

0:41:30 > 0:41:35tell us about, in your view, the societies from which it comes?

0:41:35 > 0:41:37We've heard a lot about love, haven't we?

0:41:37 > 0:41:41But I'd point out that a lot of religion is fear, and it works in that way.

0:41:41 > 0:41:45And that's a way in which you can improvise

0:41:45 > 0:41:47or you can put into place social control.

0:41:47 > 0:41:49By not breaking the moral code.

0:41:49 > 0:41:53So a lot of religions are based on fear - fear of death,

0:41:53 > 0:41:57fear of infertility, fear of poverty and fear of retribution.

0:41:57 > 0:41:59- So one of the...- The fires of hell. - The fires of hell.

0:41:59 > 0:42:02I mean, if you just look through the history,

0:42:02 > 0:42:05it's quite clear not only are they attacking other religions,

0:42:05 > 0:42:08but within their own, they use that to control people.

0:42:08 > 0:42:12- I think that's...- It's not about control, it's about accountability.

0:42:12 > 0:42:16You don't want Hitler getting off scot-free in the afterlife.

0:42:16 > 0:42:18You want him to be punished, or at least

0:42:18 > 0:42:21- there should be some accountability. - It might be a better religion.

0:42:21 > 0:42:24If you believed in a god of forgiveness,

0:42:24 > 0:42:28- actually, that might be better. - We're still over here.

0:42:28 > 0:42:30That was an interesting diversion there,

0:42:30 > 0:42:35but this whole idea of hell and punishment - carry on.

0:42:35 > 0:42:38There's research showing that children will spontaneously think

0:42:38 > 0:42:41or behave themselves if they think there's a ghost in the room

0:42:41 > 0:42:45or they think they're being observed by some supernatural agent.

0:42:45 > 0:42:49And one of the ideas is that we then kind of transpose that

0:42:49 > 0:42:52father figure or that authority figure to become a divine god,

0:42:52 > 0:42:55so that becomes a moral compass for how we behave.

0:42:55 > 0:42:57An Ancient Greek said exactly that in the fifth century BC.

0:42:57 > 0:43:00He said that there was a wise lawgiver who gave us laws

0:43:00 > 0:43:04and then we carried on being naughty in private.

0:43:04 > 0:43:06And that wise lawgiver also invented religion

0:43:06 > 0:43:08so that we would be policed in private as well.

0:43:08 > 0:43:10- It's exactly the same idea. - Speculation.

0:43:10 > 0:43:14Speculation, says Abdullah. I want to hear from you in a second,

0:43:14 > 0:43:19but, Elaine, I feel I want to hear from you on this.

0:43:19 > 0:43:20I want to hear your wisdom

0:43:20 > 0:43:24and thoughts on this idea of divine judgment.

0:43:24 > 0:43:28To the casual observer, it looks like a human construct.

0:43:28 > 0:43:33Yes, and in many ways, the way in which we go about fabricating

0:43:33 > 0:43:37judgment and pronouncing judgment on one another is very human.

0:43:37 > 0:43:41And it's about blame, it's about vindicating ones self-righteousness.

0:43:41 > 0:43:44We have all kinds of mechanisms for handling this

0:43:44 > 0:43:46in society after society, where people will not

0:43:46 > 0:43:49put their hands up and say, "Yeah, I was wrong. I made a mess.

0:43:49 > 0:43:52"I screwed this up. I'm the guilty one. Please forgive me."

0:43:52 > 0:43:55- The point about religion is that... - Punishment.

0:43:55 > 0:43:58Yeah, but the punishment is almost irrelevant.

0:43:58 > 0:44:00It's the secondary issue. The big issue is...

0:44:00 > 0:44:02Not if you're being punished!

0:44:02 > 0:44:04The big issue is, why do people do this?

0:44:04 > 0:44:06Why do people relate to each other in this kind of way?

0:44:06 > 0:44:09And what do they expect as a result of it?

0:44:09 > 0:44:14And Arif said earlier on that science has explained so many things

0:44:14 > 0:44:17and religion explains none of these things that science has explained.

0:44:17 > 0:44:19This is not what religion is about.

0:44:19 > 0:44:22Religion - and I would include many scientific religions in this...

0:44:22 > 0:44:24What is a scientific religion?

0:44:24 > 0:44:26Secular religions which are scientistic.

0:44:26 > 0:44:29In other words, they have faith in science as producing

0:44:29 > 0:44:31all the answers, all the understanding and so on.

0:44:31 > 0:44:33It's not faith!

0:44:33 > 0:44:38That is a very vital point to get a quick response before we proceed.

0:44:38 > 0:44:43- Arif?- Just on that particular point, it's a common trope amongst theists,

0:44:43 > 0:44:47and it's completely false to say that science is some kind of faith.

0:44:47 > 0:44:49There is no better evidence for anything than there is

0:44:49 > 0:44:52for any of the many scientific theories, like quantum theory.

0:44:52 > 0:44:56- Are you saying quantum theory is a faith?- Of course not!- Relativity? - Of course not.- You're not listening.

0:44:56 > 0:45:00- You're not listening. - What is this thing you're calling a faith?- You're not listening.

0:45:00 > 0:45:04A bunch of scientists always want to disagree with each other,

0:45:04 > 0:45:07always want to disprove each other, and that's the dynamic of science.

0:45:07 > 0:45:09Let me get back to punishment.

0:45:09 > 0:45:12- No, let me say where I am, because I need to finish this now.- OK.

0:45:12 > 0:45:15Scientism is a faith in science, it's a faith

0:45:15 > 0:45:17that, actually, science ultimately will have

0:45:17 > 0:45:20all the answers to all the questions that we can have,

0:45:20 > 0:45:23whereas often science simply does not have even all the questions.

0:45:23 > 0:45:26It's got more answers than it did have, so it's moving like that.

0:45:26 > 0:45:28- The gap is getting smaller and smaller.- It's fantastic.

0:45:28 > 0:45:30Yes, but we've got to be clear...

0:45:30 > 0:45:32Can I just finish what I'm trying to say?

0:45:32 > 0:45:35So basically what's going on with all of these positions,

0:45:35 > 0:45:38whether they're religious, whether they're secular,

0:45:38 > 0:45:40whether they're political and so on,

0:45:40 > 0:45:42is that they're offering people world views

0:45:42 > 0:45:45and world views are those things that are actually underneath

0:45:45 > 0:45:48all of our social ramifications and our societal developments.

0:45:48 > 0:45:52So world views answering fundamental questions like who or what is God?

0:45:52 > 0:45:54Who am I? What is it to be a human being?

0:45:54 > 0:45:57But they would say they're non-overlapping magisteria,

0:45:57 > 0:45:58- they're separate.- What is reality?

0:45:58 > 0:46:00Some of the great scientists are theists,

0:46:00 > 0:46:03some of the great evolutionary biologists -

0:46:03 > 0:46:05Ken Miller, Francisco Ayala - are theists,

0:46:05 > 0:46:08which makes the point that they are separate magisteria.

0:46:08 > 0:46:11Satish, I want to hear from Satish and I'll tell you why.

0:46:11 > 0:46:13I'll tell you why I want to hear from Satish -

0:46:13 > 0:46:16because if we're talking about divine punishment

0:46:16 > 0:46:20or retribution or reward, you are on a constant,

0:46:20 > 0:46:24as we all are, as you believe, a constant cycle of reincarnation

0:46:24 > 0:46:28until we reach a stage where we are free from birth and free from death.

0:46:28 > 0:46:30And that's a kind of...

0:46:30 > 0:46:32That's quite an optimistic view, ultimately,

0:46:32 > 0:46:35because we're all heading in the right direction,

0:46:35 > 0:46:37despite the fact that we may have some diversions along the way.

0:46:37 > 0:46:40- Would that be an accurate way of putting it?- It's not too bad.

0:46:40 > 0:46:43Starting from the premise that both cannot be proven,

0:46:43 > 0:46:46that either we're doomed and we have to be redeemed

0:46:46 > 0:46:49or that we're actually on a positive journey,

0:46:49 > 0:46:51assuming for a moment that neither can be proven,

0:46:51 > 0:46:54the more positive one would seem to be more reasonable to adopt.

0:46:54 > 0:46:57But turning to whether it can be proven,

0:46:57 > 0:46:59pure scientific method, replicable,

0:46:59 > 0:47:03something that anybody can do, requires...

0:47:03 > 0:47:06if you want to establish, "Did the mystic establish a connection

0:47:06 > 0:47:08"with some divine entity?"

0:47:08 > 0:47:10you follow and replicate his experiment.

0:47:10 > 0:47:13You don't talk about it, you actually be still

0:47:13 > 0:47:16and know that I am divinity.

0:47:16 > 0:47:20And so unless you have actually done that then it's all noise.

0:47:20 > 0:47:22It's just mental cogitations and...

0:47:22 > 0:47:25What's one of these mystical events like?

0:47:25 > 0:47:27What is it like to experience...?

0:47:27 > 0:47:30Have some of us experienced it before when we're listening to,

0:47:30 > 0:47:34I don't know, Elgar's Cello Concerto or Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club?

0:47:34 > 0:47:37Have we experienced it? Have we gone in a state that...?

0:47:37 > 0:47:38What are you talking about?

0:47:38 > 0:47:43In fact, I would suggest that it's the natural default for all of us.

0:47:43 > 0:47:46We are all created to experience something within us which,

0:47:46 > 0:47:50when it's removed, this body falls apart and decays and decomposes.

0:47:50 > 0:47:52Have some of us experienced it without realising

0:47:52 > 0:47:54that it's a mystical thing? I mean, what is it?

0:47:54 > 0:47:57I would suggest that there are... The chattering of the mind,

0:47:57 > 0:48:01once that ceases then you start to have an opening inside.

0:48:01 > 0:48:03That opening is the first of the journeys.

0:48:03 > 0:48:05But there's something Francesca said that I wanted to touch on,

0:48:05 > 0:48:08which is to do with gender and to do with creating gods.

0:48:08 > 0:48:12- And she can answer you. Carry on. - Misogynists create misogynist gods.

0:48:12 > 0:48:16You can identify the nature of the person who has created that god

0:48:16 > 0:48:20and, indeed, that then reeks of a theocracy in its birth.

0:48:20 > 0:48:23Where there is divinity, there has to be no violence.

0:48:23 > 0:48:25It can't be intellectually violent,

0:48:25 > 0:48:28it can't be emotionally violent and it can't be physically violent.

0:48:28 > 0:48:31If there is any violence present, there is no divinity present.

0:48:31 > 0:48:34So there's no divinity in any of the major religions, in that case.

0:48:34 > 0:48:37APPLAUSE

0:48:37 > 0:48:38Francesca.

0:48:38 > 0:48:42Answer Satish, he directed something towards you, Francesca.

0:48:42 > 0:48:45I think it's a real shame that... And we find this...

0:48:45 > 0:48:48There's a lot about Hinduism I particularly like, actually,

0:48:48 > 0:48:49as opposed to a lot of other religions.

0:48:49 > 0:48:52But I think it's a real shame that in all of the people

0:48:52 > 0:48:54representing different religions here,

0:48:54 > 0:48:56they're so down on humanity and what it is to be a person.

0:48:56 > 0:48:59Why do you want to get rid of the human body? Bodies are amazing.

0:48:59 > 0:49:01What's wrong with the material world?

0:49:01 > 0:49:03What's wrong with experiencing...?

0:49:03 > 0:49:05You're putting words into our mouths.

0:49:05 > 0:49:09Enjoy it for as many lifetimes as you wish. But a time will come.

0:49:09 > 0:49:12But religion seems to want to be able to offer some kind of an escape

0:49:12 > 0:49:16from the world that we have now, the world that we live in.

0:49:16 > 0:49:18That's a parody.

0:49:18 > 0:49:22- Rabbi Charley. - Judaism is so much about this world.

0:49:22 > 0:49:25- It is, yes.- It's not about doing things right now

0:49:25 > 0:49:28because of the reward in the next world. It's very much...

0:49:28 > 0:49:31And I think a lot of Jews would talk about their relationship with God

0:49:31 > 0:49:34is in their relationship with other human beings.

0:49:34 > 0:49:37It's not about the future, it's about right now,

0:49:37 > 0:49:41and because of that, the body is very much part of the soul.

0:49:41 > 0:49:43One of the first blessings that Jews would say when they get up

0:49:43 > 0:49:47in the morning is one to thank that the body still works.

0:49:47 > 0:49:48Tell me about it.

0:49:48 > 0:49:51Yeah, well, absolutely, it's a great thing to be thankful for.

0:49:51 > 0:49:54And it's not about separating the soul from the body,

0:49:54 > 0:49:57but, actually, it's in that relationship

0:49:57 > 0:49:59that, actually, we find God.

0:49:59 > 0:50:02How much of your day, Abdullah, do you spend...?

0:50:02 > 0:50:04Because some people say that Islam is very much thinking about

0:50:04 > 0:50:06what will happen in the afterlife

0:50:06 > 0:50:09and it's kind of quite afterlife-centric a lot of the time.

0:50:09 > 0:50:12- How often do you think about the afterlife?- Well, you know what?

0:50:12 > 0:50:15I mean, you have to look at human existence.

0:50:15 > 0:50:18If we believe that human existence is more than just this life,

0:50:18 > 0:50:21we shouldn't neglect our portion of...our worldly portion,

0:50:21 > 0:50:24as the Koran says, do not neglect your worldly portion,

0:50:24 > 0:50:27but at the same time also work towards something greater.

0:50:27 > 0:50:28People, even atheists,

0:50:28 > 0:50:30would work towards a future for their kids they'll never see,

0:50:30 > 0:50:32which is beyond their lifetime,

0:50:32 > 0:50:34- so they're working for something outside their lifetime.- Yes.

0:50:34 > 0:50:38But the point I really wanted to raise today is man

0:50:38 > 0:50:41didn't really create God - God created man and man created idols.

0:50:41 > 0:50:44And we shouldn't throw God out with the idols, OK,

0:50:44 > 0:50:47because they're different things.

0:50:47 > 0:50:51- And atheists do not have a monopoly on scientists.- I said that.

0:50:51 > 0:50:53For the vast majority of human history,

0:50:53 > 0:50:54our scientists have been theists.

0:50:54 > 0:50:57A lot of evolutionary biologists, as I said, are scientists. Arif.

0:50:57 > 0:51:00But there is no clash between God and...

0:51:00 > 0:51:03Non-overlapping magisteria, just like you two. Arif.

0:51:03 > 0:51:06I think one thing about Islam is that, actually, in many ways,

0:51:06 > 0:51:09Islam is very focused on life in this world

0:51:09 > 0:51:10in a way that Christianity isn't.

0:51:10 > 0:51:13So, for instance, Islam places constraints on a great deal

0:51:13 > 0:51:15of people's everyday behaviour that Christianity doesn't.

0:51:15 > 0:51:18It constrains your financial transactions, it constrains

0:51:18 > 0:51:22your personal hygiene, it constrains the way you dress, it constrains...

0:51:22 > 0:51:26- In many ways, it's totalitarian. - Very negative term.

0:51:26 > 0:51:29And the other thing I would say is that, of course,

0:51:29 > 0:51:31Islam is not the only on, other religions do,

0:51:31 > 0:51:35but many religions have a very severe and deleterious effect

0:51:35 > 0:51:36on people's lives in this world.

0:51:36 > 0:51:39If you think all the people who are homosexual

0:51:39 > 0:51:42and the things they've suffered because of religion.

0:51:42 > 0:51:45All the people that have Aids, all of the things that are going on

0:51:45 > 0:51:49in Raqqah and Jeddah right now because of your religion.

0:51:49 > 0:51:51Everyone's conscious...

0:51:51 > 0:51:53That might be easy for you to say,

0:51:53 > 0:51:56but everyone's conscience is a totalitarian.

0:51:56 > 0:51:59Everyone's conscience guides them throughout the entire day...

0:51:59 > 0:52:01What do you mean, everyone's conscience is totalitarian?

0:52:01 > 0:52:03What does that mean? In a sentence.

0:52:03 > 0:52:05It encompasses every aspect of your life,

0:52:05 > 0:52:08so we would like to think that a person's conscience would guide them

0:52:08 > 0:52:10through every aspect of their life -

0:52:10 > 0:52:13what they do, how they treat people, helping people and so on.

0:52:13 > 0:52:15Everyone's conscience is totalitarian,

0:52:15 > 0:52:17just saying the word...

0:52:17 > 0:52:19Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

0:52:19 > 0:52:22A person who does not have a totalitarian conscience

0:52:22 > 0:52:24is a hypocrite who acts on pragmatic principles.

0:52:24 > 0:52:26My conscience doesn't tell me how to dress.

0:52:26 > 0:52:28My conscience doesn't tell me

0:52:28 > 0:52:31how I should prostrate myself in a certain direction five times a day.

0:52:31 > 0:52:34- We disagree, but...- Elaine Storkey, let's get on to the basic point,

0:52:34 > 0:52:39and I know you'll go off on a flight of fantastic erudite, philosophical,

0:52:39 > 0:52:44theological rhetoric, as you do, and that's why we have you on here.

0:52:44 > 0:52:47We cherish your presence. Answer this question - there are...

0:52:47 > 0:52:51I heard Brian Cox talking the other day about the cosmos

0:52:51 > 0:52:54and about the universe, and it's just overwhelmingly awesome

0:52:54 > 0:52:56and it's mind-boggingly wonderful,

0:52:56 > 0:53:00and he said out there, there are billions of planets

0:53:00 > 0:53:03where it is quite possible that there will be life out there.

0:53:03 > 0:53:06Say that there were to be a planet there with intelligent life,

0:53:06 > 0:53:10and there is every possibility that that is the case somewhere -

0:53:10 > 0:53:12we may never, we will never know about it -

0:53:12 > 0:53:14would they have the same god that we do?

0:53:14 > 0:53:16Of course, of course, because if we...

0:53:16 > 0:53:19LAUGHTER

0:53:19 > 0:53:21If God is creator of the entire universe...

0:53:21 > 0:53:24- They'd be monotheists, would they? - No, monotheism is...

0:53:24 > 0:53:27- That's just a word.- OK. But it would be the same god.

0:53:27 > 0:53:29The god who created the whole of...

0:53:29 > 0:53:33He or she would have transmitted the divinity,

0:53:33 > 0:53:35god-consciousness to them.

0:53:35 > 0:53:38The understanding of God is that God is actually the eternal creator,

0:53:38 > 0:53:40the one who put everything into place.

0:53:40 > 0:53:43The big bang, within seconds of the big bang,

0:53:43 > 0:53:45all of the structures and the fabrics

0:53:45 > 0:53:48of the possibility of creation were already there

0:53:48 > 0:53:51and we've been working on those structures ever since.

0:53:51 > 0:53:54And so the concept of God as creator, and then God as incarnator.

0:53:54 > 0:53:57Creating a world that created itself.

0:53:57 > 0:54:00Yes, but that carries on working with God, creating itself.

0:54:00 > 0:54:02But then God becoming part of the world -

0:54:02 > 0:54:05and this is why Francesca is so utterly wrong about the fact

0:54:05 > 0:54:08that Christianity doesn't care about the body.

0:54:08 > 0:54:10Of course it does, Christ became a body, he was a body...

0:54:10 > 0:54:13In order then to push through mortality.

0:54:13 > 0:54:16Francesca, you've got to answer that question.

0:54:16 > 0:54:18Let's get a clear answer, go on.

0:54:18 > 0:54:22In order to push through mortality, in order to deny human experience.

0:54:22 > 0:54:23Not at all. In order to embody love.

0:54:23 > 0:54:27This is a god who became a human, who supposedly didn't have sex,

0:54:27 > 0:54:29didn't have very many... much to do with women,

0:54:29 > 0:54:31told people to reject their family....

0:54:31 > 0:54:34- Oh, please, give us a break! - I'll be back with you.

0:54:34 > 0:54:36I'm talking about the biblical portrayal,

0:54:36 > 0:54:38obviously I don't believe this.

0:54:38 > 0:54:39He told people to reject their family

0:54:39 > 0:54:41and to give up on their sense of tradition.

0:54:41 > 0:54:44This is not a god who cherishes what it is to be a human

0:54:44 > 0:54:47by becoming materially embodied, this is about a god

0:54:47 > 0:54:50that puts it on like a dressing gown and then takes it off again.

0:54:50 > 0:54:54It's absolutely ridiculous to think that that poor crumpled corpse

0:54:54 > 0:54:57on a cross is somehow a celebration of what it is to be human.

0:54:57 > 0:55:00Well, I do think I have a right to reply to that.

0:55:00 > 0:55:02You do have a right to reply, of course you do.

0:55:02 > 0:55:05But first of all, Jesus was very, very fully human

0:55:05 > 0:55:08in the sense that he was there to demonstrate love,

0:55:08 > 0:55:11he was there to actually call human beings to a different

0:55:11 > 0:55:14kind of life, a different life of love towards one another,

0:55:14 > 0:55:16love towards God, of actually wellbeing,

0:55:16 > 0:55:18of going the extra mile, of forgiveness.

0:55:18 > 0:55:21Most of all of forgiveness and not allowing somebody...

0:55:21 > 0:55:22Please let me finish.

0:55:22 > 0:55:25Not allowing somebody else's damage to damage you,

0:55:25 > 0:55:28- but to actually be able to transcend that.- Teresa.

0:55:28 > 0:55:30The whole issue of women is such a nonsense

0:55:30 > 0:55:33because the people who supported Jesus financially were women.

0:55:33 > 0:55:35Some of the disciples were women.

0:55:35 > 0:55:38And yet they're not represented in the literature.

0:55:38 > 0:55:40And yet where are these women represented in the religion?

0:55:40 > 0:55:42All over the place.

0:55:42 > 0:55:44I'm afraid you need to read the Gospels better and...

0:55:44 > 0:55:45I'm going to stay with the women.

0:55:45 > 0:55:49You need to... She's a biblical scholar, to be fair.

0:55:49 > 0:55:52- Well, there's scholarship and scholarship.- Are you serious?!

0:55:52 > 0:55:55Oh, hang on. This is good, I'm going to stay with this one.

0:55:55 > 0:55:58Francesca, there's scholarship and scholarship.

0:55:58 > 0:56:01What I find really interesting about scholarship quite often is

0:56:01 > 0:56:04there's an awful lot of intellectual gatekeeping and there's an awful

0:56:04 > 0:56:09lot of older-generation scholars who like to keep younger scholars down.

0:56:09 > 0:56:12- No.- There's nothing wrong with my scholarship, I assure you.

0:56:12 > 0:56:15OK, to be fair to Francesca, where I agree with you is...

0:56:15 > 0:56:18God bless the peacemakers, that's what I say.

0:56:18 > 0:56:22I have a great deal of sympathy with both of you, I would like to say.

0:56:22 > 0:56:24I mean, where I sympathise with you,

0:56:24 > 0:56:26as I don't think it is sensible to deny that there is

0:56:26 > 0:56:29a very worldly-denying and body-denying strain in Christianity,

0:56:29 > 0:56:31there's no question,

0:56:31 > 0:56:34but all the major religious traditions that we're talking about

0:56:34 > 0:56:38are very complex things and they have within them both...

0:56:38 > 0:56:41They have things about them that we may find difficult

0:56:41 > 0:56:45and not like - a world-denying strain in Christianity

0:56:45 > 0:56:47I don't like very much, a strain in Christianity

0:56:47 > 0:56:50which colludes with worldly rulers I don't like very much,

0:56:50 > 0:56:52but that's not the whole of the tradition.

0:56:52 > 0:56:53One thing I find...

0:56:53 > 0:56:56We were talking a minute ago about science and religion -

0:56:56 > 0:56:58one thing I find discouraging a little bit

0:56:58 > 0:57:01about debates between science and religion and scientists...

0:57:01 > 0:57:03That's not really what this is, but yeah.

0:57:03 > 0:57:05Well, we have been talking about it

0:57:05 > 0:57:09and I think it's an important kind of framing issue

0:57:09 > 0:57:13in the argument, is that we think about and talk about

0:57:13 > 0:57:16and evaluate science on its aspirations,

0:57:16 > 0:57:19on the best of it, on what it hopes to achieve.

0:57:19 > 0:57:22We slightly tend to ignore all the ways in which science is also

0:57:22 > 0:57:25socially framed and socially controlling.

0:57:25 > 0:57:26Self-regulating, that's the point.

0:57:26 > 0:57:29But it's not, it's drug company-regulated,

0:57:29 > 0:57:31it's politically-regulated...

0:57:31 > 0:57:34But that's not science.

0:57:34 > 0:57:37- Bruce.- No, can I please...?- No, that's quite a thing to say. Bruce.

0:57:37 > 0:57:39- It's fundamentally wrong.- No, no.

0:57:39 > 0:57:43No, you have to sign a declaration if you have a conflict of interest

0:57:43 > 0:57:45if you're producing a scientific paper.

0:57:45 > 0:57:47Now, of course, drug companies driving the agenda,

0:57:47 > 0:57:49but a good scientist will be accountable,

0:57:49 > 0:57:53their results will be replicable, everything will be evidence-based.

0:57:53 > 0:57:55And repeatable. Listen, the last word,

0:57:55 > 0:57:58and it's going to be a 20-second sentence from Cole Morton.

0:57:58 > 0:57:59Cole Morton.

0:57:59 > 0:58:02Well, as long as we're on the planet, Homo sapiens,

0:58:02 > 0:58:04- will God be around?- Yes.

0:58:04 > 0:58:07God created man and woman equal in his image,

0:58:07 > 0:58:11and it's preposterous to think that Christians exist on another planet,

0:58:11 > 0:58:15but if God does exist, then that god exists in that other planet

0:58:15 > 0:58:19and it's the kind of god that Elaine and Arif and Francesca

0:58:19 > 0:58:23and my friend here are all trying to describe and to get to or to ignore.

0:58:23 > 0:58:25Thank you all very much indeed.

0:58:29 > 0:58:31That was for you, that round of applause.

0:58:31 > 0:58:32As ever, debates continue.

0:58:32 > 0:58:35Next Sunday we're live from Uxbridge, do join us then.

0:58:35 > 0:58:37For now, it's goodbye from everyone here in Oxford,

0:58:37 > 0:58:39and have a great Sunday. Thanks again for watching.