:00:00. > :00:00.Today on The Big Questions - the dangers of sugar,
:00:07. > :00:26.the ethics of embryo research, and the death of religion.
:00:27. > :00:30.Welcome to a new series of The Big Questions.
:00:31. > :00:32.Today, we're live from Leith Academy in Edinburgh.
:00:33. > :00:38.Welcome, everyone, to The Big Questions.
:00:39. > :00:45.We all know that eating too much sugar can make you fat,
:00:46. > :00:47.especially if you don't use up those hefty calories in exercise
:00:48. > :00:53.And doctors now agree that too much sugar will also increase your risk
:00:54. > :00:55.of diabetes, cancers and cardiovascular diseases,
:00:56. > :01:03.The dangers and costs posed by alcohol and tobacco justify
:01:04. > :01:06.taxing these drugs and restricting their sale and consumption.
:01:07. > :01:08.Has the time come to take a similar approach to sugar?
:01:09. > :01:17.Should sugar be treated like a dangerous drug?
:01:18. > :01:27.Nicky is here. You would describe yourself as a recovering sugar
:01:28. > :01:32.addict? Yes, want to have inhaled a bag of Haribo, that is you for life.
:01:33. > :01:39.It is dangerous. I would say I am an addict of sugar. If you look around
:01:40. > :01:44.my house, it is like Breaking Bad with Skittles. You never really
:01:45. > :01:49.stopped. As soon as you have that as a young child with that addiction,
:01:50. > :01:54.it is very difficult not to... It is an addiction? Yes. And when you go
:01:55. > :01:57.and buy a bar of chocolate or something, you go past the newsagent
:01:58. > :02:02.and think you'll get a quick fix, you can just have one little bit of
:02:03. > :02:06.the chocolate? I think it is difficult for lots of people. When
:02:07. > :02:14.you go into the supermarket to have your quick fix even salad, your
:02:15. > :02:16.shopping journey is manipulated towards the doughnuts which are ten
:02:17. > :02:19.for ?1 right at the entrance. It is tricky. There is something in sugar
:02:20. > :02:23.that does not fill you up, but it makes you want more because of the
:02:24. > :02:28.insulin, which you are trying to deal with to stabilise your body
:02:29. > :02:34.sugars, it makes you wanted more so you are never satisfied. The more
:02:35. > :02:38.you have, the more you want? Dr Vittal Katikireddi, from Obesity
:02:39. > :02:43.Action Health, the more you have, the more you want? What is going on?
:02:44. > :02:48.We absolutely have a problem with sugars. As the population, over
:02:49. > :02:53.time, is getting more obese and overweight, we are seeing big
:02:54. > :02:59.companies really aggressively market sugars. It makes it very difficult
:03:00. > :03:04.for people to resist temptation. This is a case of really having to
:03:05. > :03:09.go against the grain because of the way that we are allowing society to
:03:10. > :03:12.operate at the moment. Have been significant studies, science is
:03:13. > :03:19.split, but there are imported studies which say that sugar is
:03:20. > :03:24.addictive. -- important studies. There is peer reviewed stuff. What
:03:25. > :03:30.is going on, biochemically, when you have chocolate, fizzy drink or
:03:31. > :03:34.whatever, you want more? I think that is true, there is some evidence
:03:35. > :03:41.suggesting sugar is addictive. I think we need to be slightly careful
:03:42. > :03:44.in saying that we definitely know sugar is addictive. There are
:03:45. > :03:51.serious questions that science raises that it sugar might be
:03:52. > :03:56.addictive. Right. Rob Lyons from Action On Consumer Choice, good
:03:57. > :03:58.morning. We heard some interesting phrasing and expressions. We had
:03:59. > :04:07.Nicky saying that we are being when a belated past the sugar, we have
:04:08. > :04:12.had aggressive marketing by the sugar dealers -- we are being
:04:13. > :04:16.manipulated past the sugar. What do you think? If you call sugar a drug
:04:17. > :04:22.or say it is addictive, you can only do that by having, to my mind, a
:04:23. > :04:27.common-sense bypass. You can define addiction or a drug so broadly that
:04:28. > :04:32.almost anything could be included. But it is dangerous? Know, in the
:04:33. > :04:37.kind of quantities that most people eat, it is a normal, and enjoyable
:04:38. > :04:40.part of our diets. Obviously if you want to lose weight, you might find
:04:41. > :04:46.that cutting down sugar is the easiest thing to do. But we need
:04:47. > :04:49.saving from ourselves? No, I think that is patronising. We are seeing a
:04:50. > :04:54.double whammy, being presented with the idea that we are vulnerable and
:04:55. > :04:57.can't make decisions for ourselves, then there is the conspiratorial,
:04:58. > :05:02.evil corporation stealing these drugs, pushes, which is nonsense. If
:05:03. > :05:06.you want to buy Coca-Cola, right next to it on the shelf is diet
:05:07. > :05:11.Coca-Cola. You have a completely free choice about a sugary drink or
:05:12. > :05:16.sugar free drink. We should be left to make the choice of cells. The
:05:17. > :05:24.base it is Bond Billings holding up a Cadbury 's Flake? -- villains.
:05:25. > :05:28.That you have to think about the promotions on the less healthy
:05:29. > :05:33.foods. They bump the price up so much on the basis of their brand, so
:05:34. > :05:37.they can cut the prices to shift more. It is always on promotion
:05:38. > :05:43.because the notional original price is inflated. But you can go to the
:05:44. > :05:47.own brand stuff, which tastes pretty much the same, a third off the price
:05:48. > :05:53.of the big-name stuff. It is very, very cheap to produce. If Ike can
:05:54. > :05:58.come to Alex Renton, the thing is, it is about freedom of choice? If
:05:59. > :06:02.you want to going to get a family sized bar of chocolate and eat the
:06:03. > :06:09.whole thing, that is your... I nearly said, I will not say it,
:06:10. > :06:14.you're dashed choice, you can do it? I Icher go, I drink, I occasionally
:06:15. > :06:21.have a cigarette. I want to be able to continue to do it -- I eat sugar.
:06:22. > :06:25.People like Rob come from an organisation funded by big Tobacco.
:06:26. > :06:31.They are trying to defend the freedoms of big corporations to
:06:32. > :06:36.exploit poor people, and poor people pay the cost of sugar. Not just
:06:37. > :06:41.them, but you and me. ?15 billion a year, the taxpayer, rising and
:06:42. > :06:47.rising just to cover Obi city and diabetes. We can't go on like this.
:06:48. > :06:50.We need to act in a way beyond education which, frankly, has not
:06:51. > :06:58.worked. We need to tax sugary drinks. The poor will suffer most
:06:59. > :07:06.from interventions like sugar taxes. We care for the poor, Catholics care
:07:07. > :07:13.for the poor. URA Catholic? Catholic Voices. Sugar taxes will head to the
:07:14. > :07:15.poor first. With the respect of Dr Vittal Katikireddi, wealthy doctors
:07:16. > :07:20.will not have to worry about how much chocolate costs. We have to
:07:21. > :07:23.think more holistically about how we organise society. If we have such an
:07:24. > :07:27.attack on family life that more people in Britain work in the
:07:28. > :07:32.evenings and on the weekends and on Sundays than in every -- in any
:07:33. > :07:36.other EU country, 25% of kids today live in single-parent households,
:07:37. > :07:42.they don't have parents with time to cook and shop for them. Wide and you
:07:43. > :07:44.look at the European model, you go into a European supermarkets and it
:07:45. > :07:51.is quite hard to find the chocolate? into a European supermarkets and it
:07:52. > :07:59.Like an Easter egg hunt?! It is! What about freedom of choice? Where
:08:00. > :08:01.is it? I am an informed, fairly well-educated person with a bit of
:08:02. > :08:06.dosh to spend on chocolate and anything else that I want. And I
:08:07. > :08:11.still buy chocolate, and I am well aware. I think it has addictive
:08:12. > :08:19.qualities. Professor Mike Lean, sugar causes diabetes? I can dismiss
:08:20. > :08:23.that one completely. The feminist science that we have, meta analysis,
:08:24. > :08:26.when you take all the research done since the research started, in this
:08:27. > :08:33.case the 1980s, you reanalyse it and you look for the truth. The NHS
:08:34. > :08:37.website, if it's a sugar causes diabetes, is wrong. Diabetes UK is
:08:38. > :08:42.correct, so was the European Association For The Study Of
:08:43. > :08:46.Diabetes and the world health is -- the world health organisation, which
:08:47. > :08:50.conducted a study last year. There is no evidence that sugar causes
:08:51. > :08:56.diabetes. Sugar is not killing us. Sugar was invented roughly 450 years
:08:57. > :09:02.ago, it came to Europe in boats. Until that time, sweetness, which
:09:03. > :09:08.you guys like, and the addiction, it is not too sugar, there was a study
:09:09. > :09:11.on this from Aberdeen, addiction to food, yes, thank goodness we are
:09:12. > :09:17.addicted to food, we would have died out as a species years ago. Sugar
:09:18. > :09:22.came over in boats. What do we do with it? Since then, people have
:09:23. > :09:27.written books claiming it causes every disease... It causes obesity,
:09:28. > :09:30.does it? You can go through them one by
:09:31. > :09:34.does it? You can go through them one Hart disease or diabetes. If you eat
:09:35. > :09:39.excess calories from sugar, you will gain weight. And the evidence says
:09:40. > :09:43.about 0.8 of a kilogram, not obesity, it causes an increased...
:09:44. > :09:49.Can I just finished, what is important, if you analyse it, it
:09:50. > :09:53.says that. But if you look at sugary drinks, then you find that greater
:09:54. > :09:57.consumption of sugary drinks causes weight gain in children. And
:09:58. > :10:04.diabetes, as a weight gain in children. And
:10:05. > :10:10.been working on this for five years, and then in Scotland so I see the
:10:11. > :10:12.effect of obesity in my country, sorry, excess sugar
:10:13. > :10:21.effect of obesity in my country, my country. 90% of scientists agree
:10:22. > :10:26.on that. One quick point... While I respect Professor Mike Lean's work
:10:27. > :10:32.very much, you are funded by Coca-Cola for some of your research.
:10:33. > :10:40.It is true. Untrue. Professor, you have a vague -- Unadkat have a full
:10:41. > :10:44.chance to respond. Take a seat. This is a direct attack, I have never
:10:45. > :10:51.been funded by Coca-Cola. I have the document here. It must be a mistake,
:10:52. > :10:54.I have never been funded by Coca-Cola. Let's get a cool,
:10:55. > :10:59.considered and can respond, Professor. We have seen an increase
:11:00. > :11:03.in food consumption, addiction to food, food you like, food you don't
:11:04. > :11:07.like, people who like more food like more food, sugar contributes to
:11:08. > :11:12.weight gain if you eat more calories. If you swap sugar for
:11:13. > :11:17.other calories, this has been subject to meta-analysis, there is
:11:18. > :11:21.no difference in weight. What is important is that sugary drinks are
:11:22. > :11:27.associated with greater weight gain in children. It is not the sugar, it
:11:28. > :11:32.is the pattern of eating which is associated with weight gain and
:11:33. > :11:36.ultimately diabetes. Dr Vittal Katikireddi, you have heard that
:11:37. > :11:43.plainly laid out. We will move on from Coca-Cola Gator if we can, for
:11:44. > :11:47.a second, it is not the sugar? The vast majority of doctors agree that
:11:48. > :11:55.having a diet high in sugar is harmful for health, if nothing else
:11:56. > :12:00.there are at least 26,000 children a year in... Admitted to hospital to
:12:01. > :12:04.have teeth removed. I remember a few years back, working as an assistant
:12:05. > :12:08.Iniesta this to, it was the low point of my week having to
:12:09. > :12:12.anaesthetise children as young as five and six because they needed
:12:13. > :12:19.teeth removed. The idea that sugar is not harmful is clearly nonsense.
:12:20. > :12:24.APPLAUSE How does a child get to the point
:12:25. > :12:28.where it certainly needs all its teeth removed? It is because it
:12:29. > :12:31.hasn't had proper dental care, proper advice, tooth-brushing all
:12:32. > :12:35.the way along to the point when all these teeth are being removed. If
:12:36. > :12:43.you see a dentist regularly from the word go, that would not happen. The
:12:44. > :12:46.problem is labelling. We are not all biochemists or nutritionists, it is
:12:47. > :12:50.in small print at the back of the package, and if you care to go
:12:51. > :12:54.around the supermarket and look at what is in the food that we are
:12:55. > :12:58.buying, the ready meals and the stuff that is manifestly part of our
:12:59. > :13:03.lifestyle, it is terrifying what is in that. But it is clearly labelled
:13:04. > :13:08.and you can work that out. You need a magnifying glass. The biggest
:13:09. > :13:12.single contributor to our sugar intake is from fruit and vegetables,
:13:13. > :13:17.followed by milk and things like that. It is not just sugary drinks
:13:18. > :13:20.and ready meals. From a health perspective in terms of being
:13:21. > :13:24.harmful, we are talking about free sugars. We are not talking about
:13:25. > :13:29.milk, we are talking about the type of sugar added by manufacturers to
:13:30. > :13:36.products. Often it is very difficult for people to tell. We can see a
:13:37. > :13:41.classic... Turn the label around, quick! That is the hangover cure!
:13:42. > :13:47.Lots of people will know there is sugar in that but they will not know
:13:48. > :13:54.the amount. How much? If you take a single can, that will be in access
:13:55. > :14:09.of what is the recommended daily amount... 11 teaspoons full. NA can
:14:10. > :14:11.of Coke or Irn-Bru. We heard it was all personal choice, these products
:14:12. > :14:16.are aggressively marketed to children. We know that children
:14:17. > :14:21.don't necessarily have the skills to understand adverts and are easily
:14:22. > :14:27.influenced and persuaded by adverts. We are seeing a huge amount of money
:14:28. > :14:29.spent by big companies on advert games so that children build up
:14:30. > :14:36.personal relationships with marketing Carib is. Surely that
:14:37. > :14:40.cannot be right? -- marketing characters. We should have
:14:41. > :14:44.controlled the marketing and a sugar tax, and the money from the sugar
:14:45. > :14:48.tax should be used for prevention. APPLAUSE
:14:49. > :14:49.Points from the audience, then we will ask about the personal
:14:50. > :15:01.relationship with sugar. As someone who was diagnosed as a
:15:02. > :15:07.type two diabetic a couple of years ago, not through an excessive sugar
:15:08. > :15:12.I should add, the idea of education and information has been made so
:15:13. > :15:17.evident to me. Know when I buy anything I look at labels, and I
:15:18. > :15:23.things, low-fat products, and the amount of sugar in them, in order to
:15:24. > :15:26.make them fat-free, lots of people are conned into thinking those are
:15:27. > :15:35.the healthy products and they are not. You have been here before. How
:15:36. > :15:41.are you doing? Pharmacist. Is this drug rows I would not say it a drug.
:15:42. > :15:46.But I think the point was made about Irn Bru, and the fact it is so much
:15:47. > :15:50.sugar in those products. And other fizzy drinks as well. Should be
:15:51. > :15:55.treated as dangerous? We should treat it as dangerous and littered
:15:56. > :15:59.the idea of bringing in some sort of regulation or controlled to limit
:16:00. > :16:04.the amount of sugar that goes into fruit juice, loans, ready meals. You
:16:05. > :16:09.would be gobsmacked, the amount of sugar in those different of
:16:10. > :16:15.products. I think restrictions on the amount of sugar that goes in is
:16:16. > :16:22.a good idea. Dry get down, educate the pull's taste buds? No, this is
:16:23. > :16:27.the same thing we have seen time and time again with public health. The
:16:28. > :16:33.low-fat story we heard was about the crusade against fat in the 1980s and
:16:34. > :16:37.1990s. It was a disaster in terms of health. Then we had the thing about
:16:38. > :16:42.salt and know we have decided to demonise sugar. We will realise in a
:16:43. > :16:50.few years that sugar has not been that bad at all. Sign says sugar is
:16:51. > :16:56.not dangerous. I am not a lover of sugar. I am probably the only person
:16:57. > :17:01.who has never tasted Coca-Cola in your life. Can anyone else claim
:17:02. > :17:06.that? It is very bad 40s. It is tragic for Scottish teeth in a
:17:07. > :17:11.country which has no fluoride. We will lose our teeth if we take it. I
:17:12. > :17:18.am no supporter of the sugar industry, and no supporter of sugar
:17:19. > :17:21.as an additive to food. Are we being puritanical? You have got these
:17:22. > :17:26.signs up the creek. The sign says it does not cause cancer, type two
:17:27. > :17:33.diabetes, quite correct. If it contributes to extra calories, it is
:17:34. > :17:39.a bad thing. Sugar tags is interesting. On sugary drinks, those
:17:40. > :17:44.are the most harmful. Science agrees with that, and the professor does as
:17:45. > :17:48.well. Taxis harm people, and people who drink more sugary drinks will
:17:49. > :17:55.pay more, but the level being proposed is ?7 per can. That could
:17:56. > :18:00.raise ?1 billion in the UK for children's health education. It will
:18:01. > :18:07.hit a lot of people. It is not a massive amount. In a six-pack, it
:18:08. > :18:12.will build up. I take that point. In countries like Mexico, which has a
:18:13. > :18:18.massive diabetes problem, it has been effective. Sales are down.
:18:19. > :18:22.Nikki, your relationship with sugar, how much is it bound up with your
:18:23. > :18:28.emotional life? Like many people, I am an emotional eater. Having been
:18:29. > :18:35.fired, ginger, and their big day growing up, it is a holy trinity of
:18:36. > :18:38.bullying. I did emotionally eat and continue to have that relationship.
:18:39. > :18:47.For me, the sugary drinks about North his choice, but what about the
:18:48. > :18:50.hidden sugars in soup and bread? I do not think we should live in a
:18:51. > :18:56.world where you can have a loaf of bread that can live for ten years.
:18:57. > :19:02.Things should taste like the taste. Cole Moreton. I know when you are
:19:03. > :19:06.amusing. I know your expression. I am thinking, as a relatively
:19:07. > :19:10.ordinary person in this debate, I do not know where to turn. I have
:19:11. > :19:15.doctors on one say telling me I should not, and doctors on the other
:19:16. > :19:18.sightseeing, feel free to do so. If I go into hospital I will see a shop
:19:19. > :19:24.full of chocolate bars and I will here that the NHS is considering
:19:25. > :19:31.imposing a sugar tags to reduce the number of chocolate bars. Why not
:19:32. > :19:34.stop telling them. When I go to hospital, the food I am being given
:19:35. > :19:37.is bad for me. We have got our surgical makers are NatWest and it
:19:38. > :19:45.is about time we cleared that up. Who is going to clear it up? A quick
:19:46. > :19:51.word from you. My name is Calum. Good morning. Using the word
:19:52. > :19:57.dangerous is overdramatising the whole thing. Like the gentleman
:19:58. > :20:04.behind me, I was diagnosed with type two diabetes. It was not caused by
:20:05. > :20:13.sugar intake because I did not use sugar. I think that the idea of the
:20:14. > :20:15.sugar intake because I did not use being taxed is ridiculous. I would
:20:16. > :20:20.never pay a tax. APPLAUSE
:20:21. > :20:25.Can I add one more point, I feel very strongly about this. We are
:20:26. > :20:26.coming to the end of the debate. We need to be educated from primary
:20:27. > :20:35.school or even need to educate their children.
:20:36. > :20:42.APPLAUSE I'm going to give Calum the last
:20:43. > :20:47.word on this. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Calum. Thank you very
:20:48. > :20:49.much indeed. Thank you for all your points on that.
:20:50. > :20:52.If you have something to say about that debate,
:20:53. > :20:54.log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions, where you'll find links
:20:55. > :20:56.to where you can join in the discussion online.
:20:57. > :21:10.We're also debating live this morning from Leith: Is it right
:21:11. > :21:26.Leases near Edinburgh. You're very particular that. -- Leith is near.
:21:27. > :21:27.And do religions get in the way of belief?
:21:28. > :21:33.So get tweeting or emailing on those topics now or send us any other
:21:34. > :21:35.The Human Fertilisation And Embryology Authority
:21:36. > :21:37.is considering a research project by the Francis Crick Institute
:21:38. > :21:40.to disable genes in single-cell human embryos one day
:21:41. > :21:45.After seven days, the embryos will be destroyed and the team
:21:46. > :21:49.will examine the effect the gene editing has made.
:21:50. > :21:54.They're trying to understand why the success rate of IVF is so low.
:21:55. > :21:57.It's a pioneering technique which could lead in the long run
:21:58. > :22:06.to more parents having healthy babies through IVF,
:22:07. > :22:09.perhaps, with a change in law, by implanting embryos whose genes
:22:10. > :22:23.Dita. Hello. Peter Whittingham Stranzl over, from the Institute of
:22:24. > :22:30.medical ethics. -- Dita Wickins-Drazilova. We were
:22:31. > :22:33.discussing this earlier on. 14 days is the limit, because that is when
:22:34. > :22:37.the central nervous system begins to develop. There is fascinating
:22:38. > :22:43.research coming out of this. You are saying that the time limit should be
:22:44. > :22:48.longer? Possibly, if necessary. I do not think it is Nasa is before this
:22:49. > :22:53.technique. Generally? Generally it could be argued that we could do
:22:54. > :23:00.research on three or four weak embryos as well. There is a strange
:23:01. > :23:04.logic that women can choose to have terminations of pregnancy after week
:23:05. > :23:07.24, and does not have to be any reason, while a three or four week
:23:08. > :23:12.embryo is very tiny, and I would say it is not human, it does not have
:23:13. > :23:19.personality. It does not have consciousness or suffering. A
:23:20. > :23:24.24-week-old foetus, that can already survive, babies have survived born
:23:25. > :23:29.at 22, 23 weeks, and they were healthy. 18 weeks, something like
:23:30. > :23:37.that? I am not sure, there would be wider debate. You believe there
:23:38. > :23:41.could be more meaningful research, potentially? Potentially, I am not
:23:42. > :23:48.sure if anyone is pushing for that. Soon, it might be. What is make and
:23:49. > :23:52.break, whether this is ethical, we should remember that people who
:23:53. > :23:58.donate these reproductive tissues, eggs or embryos, they consent to
:23:59. > :24:04.this. They understand. It is usually surplus tissues that are left over
:24:05. > :24:08.after IVF treatments. It is not for everybody. I am not saying, if this
:24:09. > :24:13.is legalised, pushing it to three or four we gamble your research. It is
:24:14. > :24:19.perfectly ethical, these are discarded embryos? I think it is.
:24:20. > :24:22.Some people are against it. If they cannot conceive naturally, they
:24:23. > :24:27.would rather adopt than go for fertility treatment. Those who go
:24:28. > :24:30.for fertility treatment are often happy to be made their embryos, or
:24:31. > :24:36.eggs that are too big or too small to be used for research. Professor
:24:37. > :24:44.Calum McKellar, the Scottish Council for bioethics, this gene editing
:24:45. > :24:50.therapy will reduce the possibility of miscarriages. Research like this,
:24:51. > :24:53.also people say and argue, controversially, it will reduce the
:24:54. > :25:00.occurrence of disabilities in babies. That is a massive issue. But
:25:01. > :25:04.it has massive benefits. It has massive benefits, but you have to
:25:05. > :25:09.look at the risks. The first procedure, trying to understand
:25:10. > :25:12.infertility in a better way, that is not something new. They have been
:25:13. > :25:18.doing research on embryos for many years. These embryos would be
:25:19. > :25:21.destroyed after 14 days. This is what is being suggested by the Human
:25:22. > :25:32.Fertilisation And Embryology Authority. That is what you are
:25:33. > :25:40.uncomfortable with? Yes. Let's get something straight. Embryos are
:25:41. > :25:43.piles of cells. That is all they are from a scientific perspective.
:25:44. > :25:47.Embryos are smaller than a pinhead. The whole earth, from a galactic
:25:48. > :25:50.perspective, is even smaller than a pinhead. The only reason that we
:25:51. > :25:55.believe that we have any value or worth this morning is because of
:25:56. > :26:00.beliefs. One third of people in Scotland, and I do not know what it
:26:01. > :26:04.is like in the UK, they believe, it is not the scientific proof, they
:26:05. > :26:11.believe that embryos are like children. What you are doing, and I
:26:12. > :26:18.am sorry about the language, you're sacrificing children for biomedical
:26:19. > :26:22.research. Chris Gyngell. Sacrificing children? It is controversial,
:26:23. > :26:26.whether they are children. If they are children, we have a massive
:26:27. > :26:32.worldwide problem in that most embryos that are created or
:26:33. > :26:36.destroyed by natural processes. About 200 million embryos year,
:26:37. > :26:45.Baissama Sankoh is, are destroyed by natural processes, which means that
:26:46. > :26:48.natural embryo loss is the greatest cause of human death worldwide.
:26:49. > :26:50.Surely we could be doing whatever we can to reduce those dads? Research
:26:51. > :26:53.that has been proposed by the Francis Crick Institute to
:26:54. > :26:58.understand human development, to understand rates of miscarriage, we
:26:59. > :27:02.are trying to reduce them. Of course we are going to die, and lots of us
:27:03. > :27:09.will die natural cause is. Ethics is about trying to decide what to do or
:27:10. > :27:14.what not to do. That is why we are looking at this issue. We are trying
:27:15. > :27:18.to decide whether we destroy embryos or do other kinds of research. I am
:27:19. > :27:24.not opposed to other research on embryos as long as it is for the
:27:25. > :27:29.benefit of them. Embryos should never be discarded or destroyed, you
:27:30. > :27:33.think that is beyond the ethical pale? That is what the German
:27:34. > :27:36.government believes, German law says that embryos should not be
:27:37. > :27:44.destroyed. There are historical reasons for that. We know that the
:27:45. > :27:47.pill increases the rate of miscarriage because the embryo
:27:48. > :27:51.cannot attach to the uterine wall. If you have got that belief, you are
:27:52. > :27:58.also against contraception. APPLAUSE
:27:59. > :28:03.Let's move to Chris McLaughlin, Catholic Voices. I hear him
:28:04. > :28:07.screaming to my right. The intention is to deal with infertility. There
:28:08. > :28:13.is nothing the Catholic Church once more than people who want babies to
:28:14. > :28:17.have babies. It is a noble endeavour and well-intentioned. What about
:28:18. > :28:22.population, we have too many people on the planet already? They say it
:28:23. > :28:26.will level out in 2060, because the birth rate is only population
:28:27. > :28:31.replacement level. This is not what we're trying to achieve, solving
:28:32. > :28:35.infertility, it is the mechanism of how we get there. Embryos are human
:28:36. > :28:41.beings in a different environment. We become children, adults, we old.
:28:42. > :28:45.The dignity and respect that is commanded by them comes from the
:28:46. > :28:52.creation and the image and likeness of God, like give you one else here.
:28:53. > :28:57.Let's take the point that embryos are human beings, Dita. I do not
:28:58. > :29:01.think they are, but it is a big ethical and philosophical question,
:29:02. > :29:08.when does human life start? Lots of people believe it starts at the
:29:09. > :29:11.moment of conception, other people, much later. Legally, a foetus does
:29:12. > :29:17.not have human rights until it is born. Nobody will ever agree. As I
:29:18. > :29:23.said, it is not the choice of individual people. If researchers do
:29:24. > :29:31.not want to get involved in research, they do not have to. -- it
:29:32. > :29:35.is the choice of individual people. Nobody is forced to be innate
:29:36. > :29:40.embryos. This is not an entirely self regarding action. If we edit
:29:41. > :29:44.the human genome, it will affect all human beings that will be born for
:29:45. > :29:50.all of time. How happy would we be in this room if 200 years ago
:29:51. > :29:54.scientists had decided which human genes should be passed onto the next
:29:55. > :29:59.generation? What would that have meant for gay people, black people,
:30:00. > :30:05.disabled people, women. The decision will all time.
:30:06. > :30:11.What often underpins these debates is a fear of bad faith, that people
:30:12. > :30:14.are doing these things for a monstrous reason. We have to
:30:15. > :30:22.recognised that all the reasons for this are good ones.
:30:23. > :30:28.APPLAUSE I think this research is incredibly
:30:29. > :30:34.valuable. Can I suggest that a lot of medical research that is done is
:30:35. > :30:40.very speculative. I work a lot on medical ethics questions, and one of
:30:41. > :30:43.the big problems is that the hopes that you have in a laboratory turn
:30:44. > :30:51.out not to be fulfil a ball, finally. With the editing of the
:30:52. > :30:54.embryo's genes, you have a problem. The nature of science trial and
:30:55. > :31:00.error? Experiments will not always work? The problem is here that the
:31:01. > :31:04.experimental subjects are babies, because you had to make these
:31:05. > :31:09.interventions in embryos, test several of the embryos, take them to
:31:10. > :31:14.term, find out what happens. You can't treat babies as experiments.
:31:15. > :31:21.Embryos are babies? You would have to take the embryo to term if you
:31:22. > :31:26.would to manipulate the human gene line, they would have to be actual
:31:27. > :31:34.children taken to term, that is ethically way unacceptable. The
:31:35. > :31:37.problem is that it will always be too risky because you can never do
:31:38. > :31:43.it ethically, so you can only do the sort of research for reasons to
:31:44. > :31:48.understand rather than for final therapy using the editing technique.
:31:49. > :31:53.Two things, the first is that we don't have to bring these embryos to
:31:54. > :31:58.term. We don't even know how these technologies will behave. Let's do
:31:59. > :32:01.some research, is what we are saying, you... Because there is
:32:02. > :32:05.widespread opportunity to understand human development and deep
:32:06. > :32:08.development on genetic engineering -based treatments. There
:32:09. > :32:14.development on genetic engineering that the human... We
:32:15. > :32:15.development on genetic engineering have random mutations which have
:32:16. > :32:22.altered the line, and every time we fathers have a greater rate of
:32:23. > :32:26.random germline fathers have a greater rate of
:32:27. > :32:31.being altered all the time. Is there any aspect of this that if it fell
:32:32. > :32:37.into unethical hands, can you see...? Of course, we need to be
:32:38. > :32:41.very, very careful. We need to carefully understand the types of
:32:42. > :32:47.genes we are thinking about altering. Carefully considered the
:32:48. > :32:53.values that we will use. But if we are guided by trying to relieve the
:32:54. > :32:54.suffering caused by genetic disease, that is a great opportunity which we
:32:55. > :33:02.should pursue. APPLAUSE
:33:03. > :33:06.Professor, I have been seeing a range of interesting facial
:33:07. > :33:12.Professor, I have been seeing a expressions. I am with Dita, I
:33:13. > :33:18.cannot envisage how a pile of cells can be envisaged to have an entity
:33:19. > :33:24.as a baby or a child. As we have heard, the whole process of research
:33:25. > :33:28.on infertility engages with a collection of large numbers of cells
:33:29. > :33:32.which will be disposed of anyway. If you can do something useful with
:33:33. > :33:38.them, it is moving things forward. The idea that people will programme
:33:39. > :33:42.people so they will never be gay or anything but Catholic...
:33:43. > :33:52.LAUGHTER Is bizarre. You say you cannot
:33:53. > :33:57.envisage how a pile of cells can be a human being. I have ball children
:33:58. > :34:01.who are all IVF children. I saw one of them is five cells in a petri
:34:02. > :34:05.dish, which reinforces the feeling that they can be. I don't come at
:34:06. > :34:11.this from a particular perspective. I am not anti-abortion. When we had
:34:12. > :34:16.IVF we were trying to work out where to put our feet. In that process, we
:34:17. > :34:19.conceived triplets. Then you have the rather chilling conversation
:34:20. > :34:24.with the clinic where the doctor says, we can offer you a reduction.
:34:25. > :34:27.What he is offering you is the reduction of one of the embryos to
:34:28. > :34:32.increase the possibilities of the others being healthy and coming to
:34:33. > :34:36.life, which is fine. So a reduction is killing one of the embryos? Or
:34:37. > :34:41.discarding the structure? Killing is a loaded term. I would not
:34:42. > :34:46.necessarily use that term, I'm feeling my way into this. But when I
:34:47. > :34:50.go home and sit down to dinner with those children, particularly the
:34:51. > :34:56.triplets, I am thinking, which one of those would it have been? I do
:34:57. > :35:01.not think the reduction happens at the stage we are talking about. The
:35:02. > :35:04.cells that you saw pulsing in a petri dish, as you seem to think
:35:05. > :35:10.they were, I am not sure they really were. There would be lots of other
:35:11. > :35:17.cells that did not get into the petri dish and we just throw them
:35:18. > :35:20.away. From an ethical standpoint, I don't want to see is in the position
:35:21. > :35:28.where we are creating a kind of storm troopers style of conception,
:35:29. > :35:32.but also, we learn a lot as human beings from imperfection, I think.
:35:33. > :35:36.There is a lot to be learned by societies. Families would say that
:35:37. > :35:44.by imperfection may learn a lot about themselves and the world? Good
:35:45. > :35:48.morning! Good morning. Quick points? There is perhaps even a bigger
:35:49. > :35:52.question in the sense that it is not just manipulating those cells and
:35:53. > :35:56.playing with genes, it is looking at the long-term effect on that person,
:35:57. > :36:05.who will grow into a human, as it were. For a number of reasons, I
:36:06. > :36:10.guess, I don't know what the technical, medical reasons are, I
:36:11. > :36:15.was born deaf in one ear. I have tight limbs and muscles in my bikes,
:36:16. > :36:20.so I limp a bit. It has always made me different. As I have grown up I
:36:21. > :36:25.have had to live with that. Now, if it had been possible to correct
:36:26. > :36:29.these things, I would have grown up differently, and I wouldn't have
:36:30. > :36:33.seen people reacting to me in a certain way, and I wouldn't have
:36:34. > :36:41.reacted to them in a certain way. It is playing with my whole psyche. And
:36:42. > :36:48.my whole world-view. I think this is very important. It is what makes you
:36:49. > :36:54.you? You think this will lead down the road to an intolerance... We are
:36:55. > :37:00.all in perfect, but an intolerance of physical imperfection or however
:37:01. > :37:05.it is seen? It depends when you do the gene therapy, the gene editing.
:37:06. > :37:10.If the person already exist and you bring about a therapy that will
:37:11. > :37:14.change their genes, that would be acceptable already. It has been
:37:15. > :37:18.considered by international law and someone, even in radiotherapy and
:37:19. > :37:22.chemotherapy you are changing the genes other person. Sometimes it
:37:23. > :37:25.could be germline, meaning all their descendants will have this genetic
:37:26. > :37:30.modification. What you are then doing is trying to treat this person
:37:31. > :37:35.or even save the life of a person. However, if you do the gene
:37:36. > :37:40.transformation in the creating process, what you are doing is
:37:41. > :37:42.creating a different person. My neighbour he would not exist, he
:37:43. > :37:48.would be another person who is perfect or has a good hearing system
:37:49. > :37:51.and so on. What you are then saying is that the person behind me should
:37:52. > :37:56.not have existed, but another person should have existed. When societies
:37:57. > :38:01.starts to say certain people should exist and others should not, you are
:38:02. > :38:09.starting a eugenics process. That the lottery of conception? It is. I
:38:10. > :38:14.will let Chris Buckler mat. It is ridiculous to say that if you change
:38:15. > :38:19.the gene at one point, say, if you are deaf, you would be one person,
:38:20. > :38:22.but if you change it at day one when they are born, there is an injection
:38:23. > :38:27.which cures your deafness, you would be a completely different person.
:38:28. > :38:31.They are in quibble and -- equivalent to me. Run a
:38:32. > :38:37.philosophical and ex-extend shall purpose, they are not. --
:38:38. > :38:43.existential purpose. You cannot say the two people are equal. They have
:38:44. > :38:46.the same value. So we know that when mothers drink during pregnancy, we
:38:47. > :38:55.think it is a very harmful thing to do and it causes genetic mutations
:38:56. > :38:59.in the child. So what Calum is saying is that you are not harming
:39:00. > :39:04.the baby, you creating a new baby? I am not saying that at all. When you
:39:05. > :39:09.have a baby already, or a foetus, you are treating the baby. You are
:39:10. > :39:12.not saying that it should not exist. That in the creative process of
:39:13. > :39:17.virtualisation, you're saying the person should not exist. Professor
:39:18. > :39:20.Mike Lean, is there a danger that we are creating... You hear these
:39:21. > :39:26.timeworn phrases, slippery slope coming eugenics, perfect babies. Do
:39:27. > :39:30.you think there is any danger in that and creating an intolerance?
:39:31. > :39:35.There is always a slippery slope but there are plenty of people keeping a
:39:36. > :39:38.close eye on the slopes. Do we trust them? The brave new world at the
:39:39. > :39:44.bottom of the slippery slope is something we will never get to.
:39:45. > :39:47.We're not seeing a little bit of deafness or a little bit of a limp,
:39:48. > :39:52.we are seeing serious problems which commit them to lifelong care which
:39:53. > :39:54.could potentially have been treated by a small genetic alteration at a
:39:55. > :39:58.very early stage. They would not be the same people, they are people
:39:59. > :40:06.more like us and do not require... More like us?! That is an
:40:07. > :40:10.unfortunate expression. If you have seen babies who are born who will
:40:11. > :40:14.remain at the mental age of warmth and their entire lives, that is not
:40:15. > :40:16.a good state to be in, we would like them to enjoy life as we do, I would
:40:17. > :40:21.like that. APPLAUSE
:40:22. > :40:25.If it can be something simple, and it will not be with every case, but
:40:26. > :40:28.if you can do something simple with a genetic tweak at a very, very
:40:29. > :40:31.early stage to give them the potential to have a more fulfilling
:40:32. > :40:37.life, I think there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is, and I see
:40:38. > :40:42.where Calum is coming from, you have to research to find out how to do
:40:43. > :40:47.that. We are going to have to leave that very interesting debate on that
:40:48. > :40:48.particular very interesting point. Thank you all very much indeed.
:40:49. > :40:51.APPLAUSE You can join in all this
:40:52. > :40:53.morning's debates by logging on to bbc.co.uk/the big questions,
:40:54. > :40:55.then following the link Or you can tweet using
:40:56. > :40:58.the hashtag bbctbq. Tell us what you think
:40:59. > :41:01.about our last big question, too. Do religions get
:41:02. > :41:06.in the way of belief? And if you'd like to be
:41:07. > :41:12.in the audience at a future We're in Bradford next week,
:41:13. > :41:16.Southampton on February the 7th But we are live on Leith this
:41:17. > :41:27.morning. According to the results of a recent
:41:28. > :41:31.YouGov poll revealed this week, if you're British and under 40
:41:32. > :41:34.you're far more likely to say you have no religion
:41:35. > :41:36.than to say you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or of
:41:37. > :41:38.any other faith. And if you don't have a religion,
:41:39. > :41:41.there's a 95% likelihood that your children
:41:42. > :41:47.won't have one either. Most of them think there may be
:41:48. > :41:50."something" and a lot of them describe themselves as "spiritual"
:41:51. > :41:53.but reject organised religions. Do religions get
:41:54. > :42:07.in the way of belief? Well, Colin Wilson from Christians
:42:08. > :42:11.Together, an evangelical Christian, a Christian man. You said something
:42:12. > :42:16.interesting earlier, there is an abandonment of biblical principles
:42:17. > :42:22.which has caused, a good word, an exodus from the church. You said,
:42:23. > :42:26.for example, God promised Abraham that the Jewish people would have
:42:27. > :42:30.their own land, you think certain elements of the Church have
:42:31. > :42:33.discarded that. Tell us more? That particular issue came up at the
:42:34. > :42:37.Church of Scotland General Assembly, where the church effectively
:42:38. > :42:44.nullified, as it would see it, promises made to the patriarch,
:42:45. > :42:50.Abraham, concerning producing children, blessing the earth and,
:42:51. > :42:55.yes, promises regarding the land. Promises of Israel, and this is all
:42:56. > :42:59.about end times? These promises to Abraham were unconditional and
:43:00. > :43:04.everlasting. There is no presupposition that the Jews had to
:43:05. > :43:09.behave a certain way for them to be fulfilled. They were everlasting.
:43:10. > :43:15.Their own homeland and all that? Exactly. What about gay marriage and
:43:16. > :43:18.so forth? That is another issue. That is another example. It is not
:43:19. > :43:25.just the National church in this regard but churches have generally
:43:26. > :43:28.speaking abandonment God 's word is being the
:43:29. > :43:29.speaking abandonment God 's word is what they would believe. This is
:43:30. > :43:38.contributing what they would believe. This is
:43:39. > :43:42.the departure from religion. We can all look around the world and see...
:43:43. > :43:48.What about society? This idea as change? ... The problems religion
:43:49. > :43:53.has created, but in a sense it is a positive thing, because it is
:43:54. > :43:58.differentiating between religion and faith. Someone once said that
:43:59. > :44:01.religion is a portrait of God painted by the devil. It wasn't on
:44:02. > :44:11.this programme! Maybe not. painted by the devil. It wasn't on
:44:12. > :44:12.a system. Biblical principles, we are in a liberal society, and equal
:44:13. > :44:18.society. Cole Moreton, is are in a liberal society, and equal
:44:19. > :44:21.problem, we have lost the fundamentals and forgotten about the
:44:22. > :44:26.promise made to Abraham? About which fundamentals? The promise made to
:44:27. > :44:31.Abraham is going terribly well in Israel and Palestine, let's
:44:32. > :44:31.Abraham is going terribly well in into that! Speaking as somebody
:44:32. > :44:37.Abraham is going terribly well in would see themselves as part of the
:44:38. > :44:41.Abraham is going terribly well in the faith wisdom too, when people
:44:42. > :44:46.say you are a Christian, what does that mean? Do you mean the American
:44:47. > :44:49.Christians who want to marry gay people or the ones who say they are
:44:50. > :44:53.going to hell? Do you mean the Anglicans in this country who can't
:44:54. > :44:57.make up their mind or the African Anglicans who want to put gay people
:44:58. > :45:02.in prison for the whole of their lives? Which Christianity is it?
:45:03. > :45:06.Which of God 's principles, which incarnation? If you put that back
:45:07. > :45:11.through the whole of the last 2000 years, in England in particular we
:45:12. > :45:14.had 500 years of a particular kind of imperialist Christianity which
:45:15. > :45:18.went out and can cut the world. That is finished, we don't believe in it
:45:19. > :45:23.any more. If you look at the poll you were talking about, 60% of those
:45:24. > :45:27.people polled in the Duke of survey said they believed in God or a
:45:28. > :45:32.higher power. -- in the YouGov survey. When you look at any
:45:33. > :45:35.surveys, in Britain as a whole there are at least 20 million people who
:45:36. > :45:39.believe in God or a higher power but don't go to church or a mosque. We
:45:40. > :45:43.believe in a higher power but we don't believe in the church. Do you
:45:44. > :45:44.think some people are driven away when they hear things like the
:45:45. > :45:55.promise made to Abraham? I think it is more basic, humans
:45:56. > :46:00.have a compulsion to be in wonder, and to gather together and search
:46:01. > :46:04.for meaning. They do that and when they gather together and search for
:46:05. > :46:08.meaning and work in their communities, they are terrific.
:46:09. > :46:15.There are Pentecostal churches, evangelical churches, with a clear
:46:16. > :46:19.message. I am sounding like a preacher. You know what I mean. The
:46:20. > :46:22.marketplace in England, I should say Britain, there are complexities
:46:23. > :46:27.within each of the nations, the marketplace and Britain is about to
:46:28. > :46:29.shout the loudest. Meanwhile these 20 million people are scratching
:46:30. > :46:37.their heads and saying, what about us? Alex. Can I speak up for the 40%
:46:38. > :46:41.of us who do not have any religion. Lots of us are put off by the chaos,
:46:42. > :46:51.misery and bloodshed that you are sort of debates have brought to the
:46:52. > :46:54.world. Actually, I remember as a teenager being involved in political
:46:55. > :47:02.movements that were exactly like the church. Chaos and bloodshed is cause
:47:03. > :47:04.by humanity, humanity playing power games and grabbing land, grabbing
:47:05. > :47:10.power, whether it is through religion or politics. Grabbing land,
:47:11. > :47:15.we just heard the debate about Abraham's promise. As a journalist I
:47:16. > :47:22.have reported from conflicts all over the world and the bulk of the
:47:23. > :47:28.most stupid and pointless ones where people arguing over what you can get
:47:29. > :47:36.on the head of the pin. Ridiculous. Chris, you might be interested in
:47:37. > :47:38.this as well. As the gentleman remarked, you define the term
:47:39. > :47:46.Christian. Do you believe in the tortures of hell? Light stick on
:47:47. > :47:51.that term, Christian. Anna Christian is someone who places their trust in
:47:52. > :48:01.Jesus Christ, we can talk about God, but as the Bible tells us, the Devil
:48:02. > :48:05.believes in God. Lots of people believe in God that do not believe
:48:06. > :48:11.in the Christian faith. What do we do about that? I will bring in are
:48:12. > :48:15.friends of version and a second. One of the interesting accommodations
:48:16. > :48:17.that some would say, more progressive manifestations of
:48:18. > :48:32.Christianity, have made, is to abandon the idea that hell is
:48:33. > :48:36.eternal torture created by God. People say, OK, they have come to
:48:37. > :48:41.the position where it is not help, we hear this phrase, it is
:48:42. > :48:47.separation, absence of God. Do you believe it is eternal torture? The
:48:48. > :48:51.situation worldwide, people are deciding for themselves. Is hell
:48:52. > :48:57.eternal torture? They have departed from what the word of God says. Do
:48:58. > :49:03.you believe hell is eternal torture? Yes. That might put people off. I do
:49:04. > :49:10.not think it is that. It is simply saying, my Way is the only way. To
:49:11. > :49:16.modern ears, that says... You're taking a sub sect of an enormous
:49:17. > :49:20.religion. The problem applies to all of these religions and institutions.
:49:21. > :49:29.Paragraphs and power plays come into play. When somebody says, my way is
:49:30. > :49:33.the only way... Jesus said... I can argue scripture with you all day,
:49:34. > :49:40.but my contention is, as a Christian of equal standing to you, he did not
:49:41. > :49:51.say that. Let's go over here. Safeena Rashid. Safeena Rashida, a
:49:52. > :49:55.Muslim and a lawyer. Islam is growing in popularity in this
:49:56. > :50:00.country. Yes, it is growing, and lots of women are coming to Islam as
:50:01. > :50:04.well. That is because they are getting answers where they would not
:50:05. > :50:10.normally get them. After searching, they are getting and stores. For me,
:50:11. > :50:15.although I was born Muslim, I did not start practising properly until
:50:16. > :50:23.I was at university. I was getting answers through Islamist. That is
:50:24. > :50:32.how I found my way. -- through Islam. Does religion put people off?
:50:33. > :50:37.I do not think it does. We all have different needs, physical needs,
:50:38. > :50:43.social needs, spiritual needs. In terms of spiritual needs, I believe
:50:44. > :50:46.in one God, and I will believe in that one God, regardless of whether
:50:47. > :50:53.I am at home or at work. It is my way of life. What you say will make
:50:54. > :50:58.sense to lots of people. They are interesting sanctions and hurdles to
:50:59. > :51:04.people, and it applies to a range of religions, and cults as well, as I
:51:05. > :51:08.may say so. Yours is one of the great world religions. There is the
:51:09. > :51:14.idea of hell, and the idea of apostasy. It is very much frowned
:51:15. > :51:18.on, if you leave the religion. It is a profound decision to make, to
:51:19. > :51:23.leave that religion. In other countries, it is a fatal decision,
:51:24. > :51:28.if you are open about it, and it will have far-reaching effects on
:51:29. > :51:32.your wider family. That maybe keeps it all in check. At the end of the
:51:33. > :51:37.day, no one is forcing you to be a Muslim. I have made this free choice
:51:38. > :51:43.to be a practising Muslim, I have made a free choice to wear a
:51:44. > :51:48.headscarf, for example. Nobody is forcing me. Nobody can tell me what
:51:49. > :51:55.to do. If I was to decide, I do not want to be a Muslim, I would go
:51:56. > :51:59.ahead and not be a Muslim. Has anyone in your brother family left
:52:00. > :52:05.Islam? In terms of the broader family, we have practising Muslims.
:52:06. > :52:09.We have Muslim is that our practising, but it is all about the
:52:10. > :52:14.choice. I am making the choice to be a practising Muslim because I have
:52:15. > :52:19.got spiritual needs, and actually, in terms of religion, in terms of
:52:20. > :52:23.being a Muslim, I can find a social community as well to satisfy social
:52:24. > :52:28.needs. The community aspect is important, that is interesting. The
:52:29. > :52:36.gentleman with the beard. Are you doing? I am fine, thank you. Do you
:52:37. > :52:42.have spiritual needs? Yes, I am in the Church of Scotland, but I found
:52:43. > :52:46.the answer because I am agnostic. The biggest problem which has been
:52:47. > :52:52.demonstrated today is the ego. Everyone thinks they are right. That
:52:53. > :52:58.is wrong. I am not always right. We have got to love one another. Let's
:52:59. > :53:05.love one another, because all the waters in Syria are cause
:53:06. > :53:08.love one another, because all the these egos. -- all the conflicts. It
:53:09. > :53:16.is caused by Rath, avarice, selfishness. All the rest of it,
:53:17. > :53:29.pride, i.e. Go, gluttony, and Sloss. Last as well. -- ego, gluttony and
:53:30. > :53:37.sloth. There you go, Alex. That is the problem. We cannot hear you. I
:53:38. > :53:46.am from the C-Coupe. Nice to meet you. You as well. The gentleman made
:53:47. > :53:49.a good point, speaking about ego. Imagine if someone is into football
:53:50. > :53:54.and you're playing on the football pitch on your own. It is boring, but
:53:55. > :53:58.when you're with the congregation, with people on the same mission, me
:53:59. > :54:07.for example, I believe that God resides within the congregation. One
:54:08. > :54:10.God, that is important. If everyone is on the same mission, it is more
:54:11. > :54:17.important than playing football on your own. You can get that with a
:54:18. > :54:23.lot of atheists meeting in the pub. What is the difference? What is
:54:24. > :54:30.happening in Britain at the moment, people are finding other ways to
:54:31. > :54:31.have community. Charities are doing well in creating groups of people
:54:32. > :54:36.who believe in one thing. There are well in creating groups of people
:54:37. > :54:43.groups that do not necessarily believe, but they meet together and
:54:44. > :54:47.sing as one, they meet. When people from different traditions tour, we
:54:48. > :54:53.are all talking about the same thing, wanting to come together as a
:54:54. > :54:59.community, to understand if there is a higher power out there, and liver
:55:00. > :55:06.lives in peace and harmony. Colin... He thinks they are going to hell.
:55:07. > :55:13.The Bible says it is appointed for man to die, and then the detachment
:55:14. > :55:22.-- the judgment. Who wrote the Bible? Sorry. Who wrote the Bible?
:55:23. > :55:30.The Bible is inspired. It was 60 authors over a period of centuries.
:55:31. > :55:33.Where the channel by God? Yes, the word is inspired through the
:55:34. > :55:42.prophets, the writers and the new Titus -- the new Testament. Love
:55:43. > :55:44.your neighbour with all your heart. You're quite right. That is not the
:55:45. > :55:52.only things he said. He You're quite right. That is not the
:55:53. > :56:00.the way, the and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me. That
:56:01. > :56:02.is not my words, that is the word. So Safeena Rashid is
:56:03. > :56:09.is not my words, that is the word. if she does not convert? That is
:56:10. > :56:15.what Jesus said. Safeena Rashid? He says you're going to hell. I do not
:56:16. > :56:24.know what you think about him. In terms of him and help, in terms of
:56:25. > :56:30.what I believe, we have been given away, we have been given... I will
:56:31. > :56:37.take that as a yes. You think he's going to hell. God has told us how
:56:38. > :56:42.he wants to be worshipped through the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad,
:56:43. > :56:50.peace be upon him. I believe in Jesus as a profit. That is a very
:56:51. > :57:04.important point. Jesus himself said, I am God. He was a profit, but he
:57:05. > :57:10.was not only a profit. -- prophet. Donald, a quick point from you. You
:57:11. > :57:14.are riding the question of whether religion is putting people off
:57:15. > :57:22.Billy. Some churches are helping people believe, and others, it is a
:57:23. > :57:27.barrier. The biggest issue we are discussing, God is the only one that
:57:28. > :57:31.knows. He knows what happens to everyone. We can make judgments
:57:32. > :57:36.based on the Bible, that Jesus does present himself as being the final
:57:37. > :57:42.revelation. Does God already know? That does not mean that a lot of
:57:43. > :57:50.other people could not also make it. Make what? To heaven. If they have
:57:51. > :57:55.never heard of Jesus, I think that God will judge you can go. If you
:57:56. > :57:59.have heard of Jesus and you reject him, have you got less chance of
:58:00. > :58:05.making it gave an? God cannot override your free will. Jesus is
:58:06. > :58:11.effectively a human being. If we are saying that Jesus is God, we are
:58:12. > :58:18.seeing that God is a human being. God is beyond being a human being,
:58:19. > :58:21.because we all have imperfections. Did Muhammad have imperfections? He
:58:22. > :58:26.was the most perfect example for us, but that the end of the day, he was
:58:27. > :58:30.a human being. He is the same way that we do, he went to the tile at
:58:31. > :58:36.the same way, but he is the example we should follow. Thank you for your
:58:37. > :58:40.thoughts, the most perfect example of a human being. I know you're a
:58:41. > :58:44.close second, Colin, but we have not got time to come to you. Thank for
:58:45. > :58:47.taking part. As always, the debates will continue
:58:48. > :58:51.online and on Twitter. But for now, it's goodbye
:58:52. > :58:54.and have a great Sunday.