Episode 7 The Big Questions

Good morning, I'm Nicky Campbell, welcome to The Big Questions.

Today we're live from Netherhall School in Cambridge.

Welcome, everyone, to The Big Questions.

The cover-up of decades of abuse of children by priests,

teachers and bishops in the Catholic Church

across the world has been one of the biggest scandals

Last September, when Pope Francis met American victims of child abuse,

he told them "God weeps" for their suffering.

And he told American bishops that he was overwhelmed with shame

that men entrusted with the tender care of children violated these

little ones and caused grievous harm.

So the Pope set up a special commission to tackle the issue.

And he personally appointed Peter Saunders, abuse victim

and founder of the British National Association of People Abused

But now, following Peter's criticism of some of the commission's

decisions and deliberations, the Vatican has announced Peter

Is the Catholic Church serious about confronting child abuse?

Peter, you got a mention in the speech after the battle was awarded

to Spotlight because of your fantastic work in this field, as a

survivor yourself, which has been an inspiration to so many people. But

you say that the speed at which the Catholic Church is proceeding on

this is an outrage? I am a massive fan of Jesus. When Jesus went into

the temple 2000 years ago and found it being defiled by various gamblers

and people, probably with the collusion of the temple, he did not

form a committee, he picked up the tables and through people out of the

temple. What many reefs are doing to children is far worse than that. --

what many priests. But why is this happening? Why do you believe they

are not doing enough? Let me say what I think. I see, every single

day, as the founder of this organisation and a current member of

the Pope's commission, I'd hear from Catholic voices telling me to keep

the fight up because children are still in danger. This is not in any

sense a historical problem, it is a live problem as we speak. And I

think what epitomises the challenges of the institutional church, not the

people of the Church, of whom I am one of millions, the institutional

church is headed up by people who I would say, at the very least an

helpful on this issue. Let me give you an example of one very senior

man in the church, who compared the church to a corporation. He compared

it to a transport trucking company. This was George Pell, a cardinal who

sits with the Pope's inner circle. He likened the church to a transport

company where one of the drivers, and he said this on record, he said

one of the drivers, if that person stops and rapes a child or a woman,

do you blame the company for the actions of that man? Two points

there, yes, you probably do blame the company because they have a duty

of care to look after anybody that comes into contact with their

employees, that is critical. But more importantly, and this is where

the church stands guilty as charged, you do not put that driver onto

another route, which is exactly what the church does with its abusing

priests. Sarah, nobody disagrees with that but the church has not

learned its lesson and Peter has been marginalised because he is

speaking truth onto power, isn't he? That would be the impression. Of

course we agree with everything he's doing. What is the church doing? You

are right, they are totally responsible for the people that

represent the church. What is the church doing? It is doing rigorous

screening of priests, people who are trying to get into the seminaries.

It is much more difficult to get in and much easier to get out. St

Luke's Centre is becoming specialised in the mentality of

abuse. People are spiralling to the seminary have to doing sourced of

questionnaires. Do you think it has gone too far? -- have to do

exhaustive questionnaires. I spoke to a lady who said that her son was

going to first confession, and there has to be a glass door between the

priest and everybody else, there has to be a woman sitting outside the

confessional. She said this is over the top and I said, frankly,

considering what has happened, nothing could be over the top. And a

lot of your friends think it is over the top. I went into my church porch

and I said, how easy is it to find a safeguarding officer? We need to do

more of this. In my parish church, the first poster you see is

safeguarding, and if you cannot get in touch with Jennifer and you have

a concern about a child, it says at the bottom, ring the police. 999,

ring the police. You are confident there is proper screening? We cannot

be complacent. I'm interested, you say that we have safeguarding

officers but they are not independently trained. The church is

doing it in house and this is the problem. They are not holding

themselves to account, they are doing everything themselves. They

have proven consistently that they are unable and they do not have the

knowledge or expertise to offer robust enough safeguarding that is

going to protect our children. I get very confused when people say that

actually they are doing everything they possibly can. You are not. I am

not seeing the Catholic Church go to the government and say, we are

accountable for abuse within our institution and it is awful and we

are very sorry and we want to work with other institutions and the

government to make sure it does not happen again. Do you still think it

is all about protecting the institution rather than the

children? They are protecting their reputation and their own priests. We

are not having all the information handed over to the police in all

cases. We are not having priests cooperate fully and be fully

accountable to the public and the police. We're not having lifelong

support for the victim, disregarding whether they hold a position in the

Catholic Church or not. We are not recognising the adverse childhood

experience report of 2012. Is it still being hushed up? Yes. Peter

and Christina I will be with you soon. You believe the current Pope

is better than Ratzinger? I believe that Pope Francis is only zero

tolerance mission. -- on a zero tolerance mission. He sped up the

process of the Lay Association of priests. If anyone is unhappy,

though, we have not done enough. Is joseph Ratzinger's record on this

unquestionable. I think he did more than people think. He speeded up the

processors. But the truth is, if people are unhappy, not enough has

been done. But the grassroots person in the Catholic Church is under the

impression that a huge amount has been done. Our secretary, if she

hires a room to somebody from outside the church, she has do a

check. It is not about being unhappy. Crimes are still being

committed and people are still being abused and raped. If anyone is

unhappy about that, they need to be appalled and disgusted. All survivor

organisations have walked out of talks with the Catholic Church in

the UK to date. They are not doing their job. Can I speak as a

Commissioner? Somebody with the considered opinion, who understands

everything you are saying, Christina Dorney. There are a lot of questions

being asked of jobs Ratzinger, especially with the congregation

doctrine of the Faith. His own brother George Ratzinger, was head

of the choir when a lot of people were being abused. He, of course,

knows nothing about it and was completely innocent, but there is

thought of, here we go again. So much suspicion cast upon the church

and you understand that, I know. Absolutely. If my was touched by a

grown-up, especially one in such a trusted role as a priest, I cannot

be responsible for what I would do. However, I think that there is a

huge presumption of innocence that we have to take into account.

Although I can in no way condone what has happened, I can understand

that when you were talking about process, what we have to do is make

sure that those who stand accused, whether they are celibate priests or

whoever they are, they are absolutely, without question, guilty

as charged. So I can understand process, I can understand a slow

process, but what we cannot accept from our church is the cover-up. We

cannot accept... Is still a cover-up? The word on the street,

and I understand that everyone is bending over backwards in your

parish, but the word on the street is that bishops still turn a deaf

ear, a blind eye, and are prepared to move guilty parish priests. And

that has to stop. Why hasn't exchanged? -- and why hasn't that

changed. This is an absolute outrage. In normal catholic on the

street, we are but we'll do it at this institutional resistance.

Although we have the structures in place, all very well, and although

priests are willing to take the rap when they are innocent, it is better

that they take the rap that children get harmed. But it seems that there

needs to be a culture shift. Parents will not come forward because they

want to protect the church and I tell them, protect your children.

Ordinary Catholics are appalled and disgusted. Speaking as the Pope's

Commissioner, I have to say with great sadness, Nicky, that I do not

believe that we have zero tolerance, which is what the Pope said must

happen. I can give you a number of examples very briefly. Whilst I was

in Rome a few weeks ago, it was reported to the commission, and

although we're not supposed to deal with individual cases, when you hear

what I'm to say, you will see the reason for my anger. One of our

commission members was told by two visiting a catholic priests, two

good priests who had gone to their bishop because they had discovered

that one of their colleagues in their parish was abusing the

children, was a child rapist, let's name it as it is. They went to their

bishop, not years ago, weeks ago, they went to the bishop and told

them what this man was doing. The bishop said they must do nothing and

remain silent. They then went to the police in the local area to report

this. This is in Italy. They went to the police and the police said, the

first question was, and you spoken to your Bishop? Those children are

still being raped and abused by this man and nothing is being done. Do

you think this is happening in a lot of places all over the world. Let me

finish. I said to the commission member, my colleague, who happens to

be a Jesuit priest. I said, what be done with this information? And his

words were, congregation for the doctrine of the Faith. We know that

it will join a file of thousands to be examined by clerics who will

inevitably do probably nothing while those children are still being

abused. That cannot carry on. The comeback 2-0, -- to come back to

zero tolerance and what has been happening, the Pope made an inept

remark a few days ago when, ask about abusing clergy, and the

bishops that protect them or move them about, the Pope said they

should resign. That is appalling because if you or I were accused and

found guilty, or credibly accused, of moving child rapists from one

place to another, I do not think it would be a matter of resignation, it

would be a matter of dismissal and being handed over to the police.

APPLAUSE. What Pope Francis said was the best

thing they could do is resign, not that's the only thing that would

happen. We've had a very unbalanced discussion here about what the

Church is doing. A book has come out by an agnostic Chicago attorney who

has made millions out of suing the Church for these abuse claims. He

said the most important thing to protect children is to act swiftly

when the abuse happens. He says the institution has been doing more, the

Catholic Church, when you look at what the champion has done... If

there had not been lawyers like that, if there hadn't been brave

survivors talks investigations, any of this and people releasing this

information and going to the press and saying, my goodness me, this is

happening, this is awful, something should be done, do you think of its

own volition the Catholic Church would have moved to clean this up?

Not as swiftly, no. As a Catholic I'm glad this has happened. I'm glad

that the film Spotlight, that lawyers have uncovered this. What is

it about the Church? Because there were Bishops and priests who wanted

to cover up, to save the image of the Church and to save their own

next, and that's disgusting. Anyone who has done that deserves to be

punished by the law. Justice for the survivors of abuse does not justify

injust noise the truth not only of what the Church has done but the

Church in general. What's true in England and America isn't true in

Japan and Argentina. Over 1 billion people and say what's that this done

here, what is the Vatican doing to make sure that best case practices

are across the board? The Church has done a huge amount to make sure that

has happened. Peter, we are in no way questioning the beauty, the

holiness of the Church globally. But we are saying that when it comes to

this most heinous crime, this most disgusting crime, the Church has

been complicit up to a point... APPLAUSE. There've been Bishops

who've and priests who have, you can't say the Church as a whole. The

hierarchy. But not all elements of the hierarchy. That's a ridiculous

thing to say. Was there an institutional mindset. It needs to

change. You had your arm up earlier. Any other comments and then I want

to raise another issue, raised on this programme three weeks ago, the

confessional, which really did get a lot of debate going on social media.

What would you like to say. Good morning. We've spoken a lot about

safeguarding and preventive measure was the glass walls, but if the

Vatican is that serious and the Catholic Church are that serious

about preventing child abuse, why in recent training guidelines that have

been issued all Bishops say it is not necessarily the Bishops'

obligation to report that to the authorities? And that is the

responsibility of the parent, and we have parents... That was a

misreporting and the Pope stated straight afterwards the fact that

they are obliged. That was in a conference. Are you saying it is

mandatory for all Bishops to report known abuse? That's what the Pope is

asking for. But that's not in place right now. The Church seems the

think it is above the law. If we were talking about the abuse in,

say, the entertainment industry, everybody is up in arms about it,

saying everyone must go to the police, but the Church, police and

Bishops don't need to go. I don't think the BBC came rushing forward

to admit its problems ahead of time. We are talking about thousands, not

Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall. We are talking about thousands of priests

across the world and thousands of children that have been abused, with

respect. The confessional. Allow me to raise the seal of the

confessional. Peter, in what, this is what people who are non-Catholics

just do not understand. In what moral universe is it in anyway right

for example where there to be a priest confessing to another priest

and he says look, I have been abusing children, I have been raping

children, and I'm out of control, I don't know what to do about this.

For that priest who has taken the confession not to go to the police

straight away? What moral planet are you on? Well, the reason for that, I

totally understand. I really do understand. If I were a non-Catholic

I would find that difficult to understand. It is not funny is it?

It is not funny. The only way you understand it is if you understand

the seriousness we take of the confessional itself. That's

difficult if you are not a Catholic. No matter what you confess to a

priest, he can never ever tell anyone else. Never. And that is a

hugely important part of our religion. What he would say however

to someone engaging in abuse is repent. If you are repenting, that

means got to the police. To repent means turning away completely... And

God's forgiveness. And go and do justice, so going to the police. You

need forgiveness of the children you've raped surely? It is an

important part of your belief and it is a disgusting part of your

religion... APPLAUSE. You can bleat all you like

about the beauty and the glory of the Church and all that, but we've

had rapists walking around in cassocks and it is going to take

many years for that to stop happening. The other thing I will

say is in some ways it doesn't surprise me. I'm surprised that you

are surpriseden about this, the Catholic Church has a great deal of

form in dealing with things not in the interests of justice but

ignorance and superstition. It took 350 years for them to admit that

Galileo was right. You might say it was because they wanted to be sure,

but the rest of the world was sure before that. Heavy been obstructing

their complicity in Damascus and Rwanda. I'm surprised their

surprised about that. Sarah? Can ky clarify the point about confession,

which is extremely important. Part of confession is restitution. A

confession box isn't to go in, dump your crimes and walk away. You are

not absolved if you are not sorry and if you don't make restitution.

People misunderstand confession themselves. If you don't make it...

So you have to be sorry? No, you have to make restitution. If you

walk out of the confessional and you don't make restitution, your

absolution is null and invalid. Surely restitution means going to

the police? Surely, a priest could say in confession, this is what you

need to do to do your restitution. People need to understand why they

go to confession. Are you saying that you are above the law? Law? If

you are saying it is about... You have misunderstood what I said,

Lewisy. You do have to make restitution or you are not forgiven.

I'm not interested in who is forgiven, but whether child rapists

are allowed to carry on walking around in the Church and whether

they are told they must go to the police.

APPLAUSE That is exactly what's happening right now. And you are

shaking your head and talking in the past tense. This is happening today.

We know this. Peter, last word. The worst possible thing worst possible

thing is if innocent thing - it is not the worst thing of course, but

go on. If you have evidence, you should go to the police. Anyone

should go to the police and tell the Church as well. You are saying

priests don't need to do that. We are not saying that, absolutely not

saying that. Are you worried about innocent people being dragged into

this because of a climate of accusation? No, I spoke to a priest

who had been maliciously accused. He had been 18 months out of being able

to administer to people I said look, this is what Jesus goes through. It

is much better that you get pain for two years than children be abused

and he said yes, I'm here to be like Jesus. Why are you laughing

afterive? I'm happy that you are doing what you are doing, please

carry on. Why do you find that uncon shonable. I was laughing because I'm

tiring of this stream of superstition and nonsense used to

paper over genuine suffering. APPLAUSE. I think we would benefit

from a period of silence on your part while we listen to these brave

people, for whom I have a great deal of sympathy. And I think a period of

silence on your part. Gosh! We have to move on. Thank you all so much.

Thank you for your heart-felt comments and your explanations for

non-Catholic ears. It is very much appreciated Cristina, Peter and

Sarah and thank you as ever for your bravery Lucy and Peter.

If you have something to say about that debate,

log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions, where you'll find links to join

We're also debating live this morning from Cambridge: Do

we all have a duty to look after our elderly relatives?

So get tweeting or emailing on those topics now or send us any other

ideas or thoughts you may have about the programme.

This week it was reported that a number of hospitals are imposing

eviction notices on bed-blocking elderly patients.

Their relatives had failed to find a suitable care home for them

The patients could face legal proceedings if they don't leave

hospital within three weeks of being declared medically fit.

And the biggest bed-blocking problems are in those parts

of the country where care home costs are high ? like Oxfordshire,

where average weekly nursing home fees are around ?1,000 a week.

But in days past, families would have taken their frail

and ageing parents into their own homes or arranged to look

So, do we all have a duty to look after our elderly relatives?

Lynne Burnham, duty is a strong word but I know you feel that we have

kind of fallen behind other cultures, don't you? Yes. We have.

But I think it's a worldwide phenomena. I don't think it's just a

phenomena particularly to the UK. It is very sad that we live in a

society where care per se is not valued. As mothers at home matter

campaign constantly to get the Government to appreciate that care

matters. Because somebody has to do that care.

Inevitably, with more and more young children being placed in childcare

from an earlier age, they are not going to grow up knowing what

familial care is like, because they are not going to have the appearance

there, looking after them, nurturing them and bringing them up. Further

down the line, we are surely not going to see that when their parents

get a little bit older, they are going to struggle to value the care

that they will need? But what about now? The whole attitude of looking

after our parents, let me come to you, Steve. When you hear this,

moral duty, that we have lost our moral duty to our parents, how do

you react? It is a sign of our civilised society, how we look after

our older people. We all have a duty to do so, individually and

collectively. Many people cannot look after their elderly parents

because of their work responsibilities, perhaps because

they do not live anywhere near their parents, or because their parents

need more care. They need a care home place or they need care in

their own home. We have a crisis of care in this country. There are 7

million people providing family care and they are doing it very well.

They do not get much support as unpaid carers. They need more help

with advice and information, benefits and allowances. Because the

world has changed. More people are trying to balance work and family

care. We need a better care system, and that is the big problem in

Britain today. Underfunding of care, a poor quality of home care services

and care homes, and we need tougher regulations. Earlier on, you were

saying to me that there is an element of sacrifice that we have

lost. What do you mean by that? Absolutely. There is a circle of

life and there should be time for every aspect of care, work, play, we

are working for much longer and should be time. The government

should accept that people need to step back from the workplace at a

given period because they have these caring responsibilities and that is

the same for young children, just as it is for elderly folk. This is what

makes us human. Care defines us. As a race, as a human being. I think it

is beautifully put. I am the director of the Centre for care

values, and one of the few values that are uncontested, whether we are

Muslim, atheist or Christian, is altruism. Self-sacrifice, thinking

about others first. And it is really important to learn that on an

intergenerational level. We need to care for the elderly. One of the

saddest thing is, if you go into a ward, and I have spent a lot of time

looking after my father and mother, and I have seen that everybody

else's bed is without a visitor. Nobody there at all. And these

elderly fathers and mothers and aunts and uncles, they are not being

taken care of. It was interesting when Nicky said, do policies drive

the social attitudes, because in Singapore, where the demographics

show a greater proportion of the public is now elderly, they have put

in a policy that gives you 20,000 Singapore dollars if you can argue

that by buying the particular house you want to buy, you will be either

living with your elderly parents or near your elderly parents. And that

is the kind of imaginative response to this kind of care crisis that we

could easily adopt ourselves. Alan, it is about caring for people, and

thinking ahead. It is about how we hope our children care for us. --

Helen. I'm sure you see examples where people are just plonked in a

home and never visited and they may be few and far between but you must

see these cases sometimes. We touched on the society case. There

is a crisis in care and there is good news, we are living longer but

longer in ill health. We have a false choice in terms of choosing

where we want to live and that might not be the most suitable in terms of

when we are incapable of looking after ourselves. We have of choice

about work and not living near relatives. I think there are huge

issues that have been touched upon but I do not think it is a duty for

unpaid, informal family carers to have to care. And I tell you why

that is. It is a humanitarian issue, it is humanity to want to do that.

There are 7 billion people who care for somebody else but there is a lot

of evidence that it is damaging, physically, emotionally and

financially. For carers. Disproportionately women as well.

That is an interesting point. Poor in ten carers are men but they tend

to be older men, so it is not representative across age groups.

And they are less likely to come forward for help and the help they

need is different for women because they see it as their duty. It is

wrapped up in a sense of guilt and failure to ask for help. There was a

law that came in in 2015 gave unpaid, informal family carers new

rights, to be treated the same as somebody with a disability, and so

that is the opportunity to be asked, argue willing to care? And the

reason that is important, most people are willing to care but they

do not know how difficult and damaging it is. And there is

opportunity for help there. I think I am part of a commission of carers,

and we are looking at a new strategy that will look at Singapore and

around the world, and see how we incentivise change. Because we

cannot go on as we are now. People think there is a pathway. What about

other cultures. In comparison to this one, they are impoverished, and

parents will be looked after always with huge financial sacrifice by

their children in situ. Just because it is the right thing to do, they

believe that is part of the cycle of family life. I do some work in

Nepal, and we see multi-generational families, but they largely work in

rural economies, and it is quite a different situation. You had an

upbringing, a Muslim upbringing, is this a very different attitude in to

Muslim communities? -- a different attitude to Muslim communities. It

is land generally hates women more than the Catholic Church does. But

the connection with one's mother, Islam has a different attitude. Your

mother is someone you respect more than you even your own father. The

person you respect most in your life. And of course that is not just

Islam, that is true especially in Chinese religions. One thing I would

say is that these moral codes evolved at a time when the natural

life span was 70 years. Now it is much greater than 70 years, and the

costs associated with this sort of duty, if you want to call it that,

and I agree that it is not an absolute duty, is much greater. So

the question we should be asking is how one can balance certain types of

moral obligation toward looking after elders, and financial

pressures, having to look after one's children, and other aspects of

one's life. This is a decision that individuals need to make themselves.

The government should not make it for anyone. Before I hear from you,

let's get this gentleman and a couple of other audience comments.

Good morning. First of all, I think we have to realise that we are under

severe financial pressure. The government does not have money to

spend on anything. They are under resourced. There is a debate. And I

think it is like speaking to someone who argues that the government

should put in more money or subsidise health care for the

elderly, and the worst thing is privatising this care of which is

what is happening at the moment. One thing you have to understand, during

this crisis, people do not have time for their families or their

children. And then you add them to take care of elderly parents, which

is a big challenge under these circumstances. The only thing which

can be done to tackle this problem is to spend more on social services,

and not bankers and big businesses. Government money is going to those

things, and not on these services. You know how to get a round of

applause! You had your hand up. I am here with olives and we know each

other because we met at a tea party. I am a volunteer who contacts the

elderly. The thing that comes through with Olive is that this

debate happens without the views of all the people. A lot of older

people do not want to be looked at by their families. -- looked after.

You are very proud of your children for having jobs and you look after

yourself as much as you can. Olive, if you want to speak to us, it would

be good to hear from you. She is having trouble hearing. Say what you

want to say. Well, I can see both sides of the problem. I have to be

responsible -- I had to be responsible to my mother until she

was 98. It affects the children. Little titbits are still coming out.

She always wanted to go first. I am 84 now, so I might have a problem

with what happens to me. But as far as I can do it, I am being

independent. I have put a lot of facilities in the house and the

house is still the home for the children because they both work in

Brussels. They keep coming over and they keep their eye on me. But if

push comes to shove, I know I should go and stay with one of them. But as

long as I can be on my own, and be independent, that is how I want to

be. I was going to say, that really

should be the last word. I do so much. A quick thought, Sarah? I

always wanted to look after my mum. My dad died a year ago, but I have

to say, people spoke to me and said, your mother, she is actually really

happy in her care home, and sometimes it is professional people

who do a really great job looking after her. I get to see her more

frequently and so does my sister. I live in one room and my sister lives

on the third floor of a council flat. A lot of women are unmarried

and have no money. We need to invest in care homes. The carers are like

angels and we are very blessed. Professional carers do a fantastic

job and my mother gets a variety of care, and a diverse amount of care.

She is learning about iPads, all sorts of stuff. And we have the

situation of bed blocking in some of the wealthier parts of the country

because people worry about the inheritance tax thresholds and they

are sitting on a windfall and they are loath to have any of that money

trouble away. There are loads of layers of complicity. A final

message, do we have to look in our hearts? We do. But we also have to

as the government to change their way of thinking on this. Because the

office for National statistics issued a report in 2010 where they

valued the unpaid childcare, care by the family in the home, at ?343

billion. That was the value that the office for National statistics have

put to it. That is 23% of GDP. What would happen if you added in the

care that parents and families provide for elderly relatives? We

save the government a huge amounts of money. That needs to be

understood and we need to get respect back for people who do care?

All hail the carers. They do the most fantastic job.

You can join in all this morning's debates by logging

on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions then following the link

Or you can tweet using the hashtag bbctbq.

Tell us what you think about our last Big Question too:

And if you'd like to be in the audience at a future

programme, email [email protected].

We're in Newcastle upon Tyne next week, Cardiff on 6th March,

The Church of England Synod received some distressing news this week.

Attendance at its churches is set to fall for the next 30 years,

with today's figure of 18 people per 1,000 regularly going to church

dropping to just 10 per 1,000 by 2046.

Today an 81-year-old is eight times more likely to attend church

A new book, Battling the Gods, published here in Cambridge this

week, challenges the assumption that humanity is naturally predisposed

to believe in gods, and describes how atheism existed in the most

ancient of classical societies long before Christianity did.

We are going the speak to the author of that book in a minute, but let's

start with Dr Elaine Storkey, theologian and philosopher. Lovely

to have you here this morning. Thank you. Virgin births, people coming

back from the tomb, corpses coming out of the graves, talking donkeys,

Peter 2: 16. How can it be a rational choice? The whole idea that

atheism is a rational choice, the topic of this discussion, my answer

is no it is not a rational choice. You've started talking donkeys as a

rational choice, which I hadn't come to debate. It is fair to turn it

around, because we are talking about which is the rational choice. People

might question that, talking donkeys on the list. But we are talking

about atheism, is it the rational choice, so let's stick with the

topic we've come to debate. No, sorry, which is the rational choice,

which is the irrational choice? It is an absolutely fair area. No, the

which is the wrong question, as though there were only two options

here.. Atheism or talking donkeys. That's what I'm rejecting

completely, because it is banal. Before we fall out completely...

We'll have a cup of tea later. I'll buy you lunch! The reason I

mentioned talking donkeys, which all atheists find mind-blowing... But

talking donkeys is also daft. That's the prima facie thing that people

think about it and they move on the other theology, and that's

understandable and fair enough. But doesn't faith transcend religion?

That's not an ir religious thing to safe. Faith is greater than reason,

that's the argument isn't it? No, words get their meaning from the

system of which they are a part. So we can construct meanings of reason

that are actually buying into certain systems have certain

presuppositions loaded into them. You can have reason that starts from

the assumption that there is no God. Once you've taken that as your

point, so that reason is gaining knowledge from our five senses or

understanding what we gain from these experiences, it is a very

narrow view of reasoning. By the time you've got down that path, you

don't have time for God. Excuse me, Elaine... No, I'm not excusing you,

because I haven't finished yet. She's in good form, Arif. Careful

how you go on this! Reason isn't about starting out with a belief

that there is no God. I haven't finished yesterday. You don't

believe something if there isn't any evidence of it. The evidence is

based on the assumption that you are already putting in to the programme.

When making a programme on a computer you are programming things

in and you know at the end of it will get information out of it.

There isn't one universal objective view of reason that the entire human

race and everyone in the world agrees with. People will have

different views of reason. Where will I go for my understanding of

whether atheism is rational... Extraordinary claims require

extraordinary evidence? Do I take some leading sciences, a Professor

Of physics at Oxford University, Professor McLeish at Durham

University, or the head of the genome project. They say

Christianity is where we are. Olive is dying to come in. Tim, you are a

former vicar. I agree with Elaine, but we are starting in the wrong

place. It seems to me that reason isn't why people make religious

choices. You become part of a religion through growing up, through

all sorts of things. It is actually quite difficult, as I know from my

own experience, to walk away from that. But you are an atheist but a

kou vicar. that. But you are an atheist but a

kou But a Church of England vicar. Because life would possibly be more

comfortable if I had, but I couldn't do it. Tim, via ex-vicars and

talking donkeys and Elaine's superb exposition of different types of

religion. Let's talk about the ancient atheists. This is before

Elaine, before Einstein, before Darwin, before Galileo. I think he

was mentioned earlier on, before Jesus. Where did these ancient

atheists get the intellectual weaponry for? For this? It is just

as normal a future of life as religious belief. Atheism is

certainly the intellectual choice. Atheism isn't a belief about the

world, it is a methodology that says that we don't start from a position

of dogma, we start from evidence, and to the best of our abilities,

and the human brain is fallible, we go from evidence to conclusion, and

we are led by that evidence. I might respectfully say that the discussion

earlier about the Catholic Church's own investigation into child abuse

might have been bettereded if they had followed that methodology. So I

would say it is intellectually critical but like Elaine I'm rather

suspicious of the word rational, which seems to plug us into a story

of human progress away from primitive societies that don't get

things via the enlightenment and so forth, with the western modernity.

What about the early atheists, what were their views on first cause? It

know it was a time of thunderbolt and rainbow, God did this or that.

Were they not bound up in notions of creation? If you think about where

fault lines form between the religious and the atheistic, they do

change over time, and creation is one of these things that is very big

in the 20th and 21st searchry, I'm not expert in the history of these

debates, but it wasn't a fault line or classical antiquity. They were

keen to find alternative explanations to phenomena.

Thunderbolt was the weapon of Zeuss, so it was a key weapon in trying to

unpick conventional ideas of theism. Arif, do you think that belief is

explainable in terms of natural selection? And evolution, if we have

reached a certain cognitive level you can explain the thunder bolts

and the rainbows and see significance in things. That's

right. Obviously there are theories concerning how religious beliefs

came to be in the first place and religious belief may have a natural

basis. This is a their riff which goes back at least to David Hulme.

People have a natural tendency and there is an evolutional advantage to

be incredulous about the phenomena that you observe. So the benefits of

being slightly too credulous that the thing you see is a snake rather

than a stone are clear. What's the advantage? The advantage is that you

run away more often than you need to. Survival. Yes. Surely as well it

is being able to be the guy that can explain stuff. See that thunder?

Yes, that's right. And then you have more successful breeding. I don't

know whether we can chronologically chop it up and say this comes then,

but humanity has always been a big bag of Harib organisation, a bag of

Haribo, a mix of sweets. There is just no evidence that the universe

was made by a man with magic powers or somebody came back from the dead,

let alone the talking dorngies or snakes. But that's symbolic, God is

outside space and time. You are dragging God into the wrong place.

They only said it was symbolic when it became clear that the evidence

said it was false. You missed church this morning didn't you? Peter,

Sarah is dying to get in! Let me come to Peter on this. It doesn't

affect my belief in Christianity to think that atheism is one of the

default positions, as we believe that man has fallen and was

separated from his creator. It was interesting that the professor went

for an expansive idea of atheism. It is the disbelief of God. That's all

it is. You can't simply say that atheism is one particularly thing.

Some are empiricists and they believe the only things that are

true are those things you can empirically verify. Others believe

that the only thing that exists is material. The reason I don't think

atheism is a rational choice is there is too much evidence for the

existence of God, and Catholic Christianity to believe that atheism

is true. For that reason I would say it is irrational. We have the

evidence of the resurrection, which is excellent. Where is it? Excellent

evidence historically, but Mehta physical evidence of God such as the

(Inaudible) of change. Tim first of all. On evidence, this idea of

people rising from the dead, that's a common feature of a number of

different ancient stories and it is a way of explaining. A story is told

in a similar way of coming back from the dead afterwards. It is how you

express the idea of a holy man in a genre of writing. It is not that. It

is based on the fact that they go forward and die for this belief.

That's not the same. Contemporary Connick hers like Filo of Alexandra

didn't mention it but others do mention it. We've had that debate

before. We are going to have it before and you, Sarah, think that

belief is logical and rational, but which belief? Is Scientology, is

that rational? It is not really religious. It is recognised as a

religion. Hare Krishna, is that rational? You have to work out,

first of all, I would like to start with why I think that atheism is

irrational. Is Mormonism rational? Shall we just start with belief in

God? I think you can demonstrate there is some religions that have

better... Better... Sarah, I do apologise. Over to you. You.. Faith

and reason, John Paul said, are the two wings that the spirit soars. Why

is faith reasonable? Because it answers to the longing obvious the

human heart. I think it is irrational to feel that a room full

of people and an earth full of people who long for justice, for

truth, for beauty and eternal life should be living in a universe that

answers to none of those desires and requirements. What a cynical thing

to believe that all the things we desire are nothing and they end

nowhere and time is there and we fall into an abyss of meaningless.

That's irrational and cynical. But you also need apart from that

longing and desire and the beauty of the lives of the Saints. I'm not

here talking about the source of Mormonism. What do we need religion?

Because the human heart cries out for love and meaning. Because it is

true. We cry out for a communion. But wanting something doesn't make

it true. What Wanting something doesn't make it true.

APPLAUSE. I agree with you, Sir, but that's why you need reason to

understand. Wait a minority. Arif? God bless you. It gives an idea

behind the reasons you think are arguments. You did talk for about

three minutes, mam, and I haven't heard a single argument. I did hear

one argument from Peter earlier, to do with scriptural evidence for the

resurrection and you alluded to another one. Everyone knows it is

clear that people make mistakes all the time, scriptures are wrong all

the time. You believe in testimonies in Islam, Mormonism and Scientology,

in David were youer, these are wrong. These mistakes, plenty of

reason to think. I'm going to privilege Elaine here. Thank you!

Afterive. Elaine? Arif, you are a good academic. I respect your stuff

in a range of ways, but what you are talking now is rubbish.

LAUGHTER Have you never heard... You can't say scriptures are wrong. The

Bible is a library, not just a book. Excuse me... Let me finish! It is

tool about literature. Some of it is letters, dream analysis. Some of it

is fiction. Deliberately, the gospels are full of fictional

stories, we call them parables. The talking donkey is a parable. Right?

You read them appropriate to the form of liturgy. You don't get the

books of law out of the psalms. That's interesting but I want an

argument that these things are true. Afterive, a thunderbolt is going to

knock you down in a minute! Elaine, was this should not... We are coming

to the end. We should have started a much earlier. We were talking about

other things. Let me ask you this. Isn't it logical that in the dawn of

our species the cradle of our species 100,000 years ago people

only lived for 20-25 years, so adulthood was short, people died, a

massive infant mortality rate and religion was a way of dealing with

death and loss? APPLAUSE. I wasn't expecting that! A

quick answer, Elaine? Well what's the question? Wasn't that the reason

for the development of religious belief? No, not at all. It was not.

You've given no evidence. You've just developed a hypothesis. The

reason for people's religious beliefs. It was a better hypothesis

than the man with magic powers. Any chance of me finishing my sentence?

The reason for religious belief is deep down in our heart we have this

yearning. Every human being would consent to having a great deal... We

have to leave it there. She's right, we should have started earlier.