@@christaylor9247 Well said! Because the materialistic/atheistic paradigm is itself a metaphysical, that is a philosophical presupposition that can not even be grounded in materialism. It’s faith based! The belief in knowledge, reason and “truth” is faith based from the perspective of a materialist as these are metaphysical presuppositions. So we are all on equal footing. Equally, methodological naturalism (science) is supposed to be metaphysically neutral so you can’t appeal to scientific authority to ram your own set of metaphysical beliefs regarding materialism or Humanism down everybody else’s throats. The only way to avoid being a metaphysician in a philosophical debate about values is to say nothing. The conflict between science and religious expression is a myth spread by militant atheists as it is a false dichotomy. I’m not appealing to authority but the famous scientist and Director of the Genome project who is now the Director of the National Institute for Health is a convinced Christian. I really feel sorry for Alice’s mum. It’s a bit petty and self contradictory for Alice to hide behind the cloak of scientific authority to complain about C of E schools whilst sending her own children to said harmful C of E school because you clearly know they are not harmful and are fit for purpose. The reason these schools do so well is because they have a good ethos and they are so well established because they were originally funded from donations through church which is why they exist in the first place. So why try to fix something that isn’t broken. Alice is a successful and privileged women and if you want to promote humanism no one is stopping you from setting up humanist schools. The irony is that initially Humanists tried to open up Humanist churches as they recognised the importance of freedom of religious expression but they failed as no one wanted to worship man. If they had been successful then maybe we would have had established Humanist schools with universal values that would be with in everyones best interests for the government to support. C of E schools clearly share universal values with everyone including Humanists which is why Alice had no problem sending her own children there and the vast majority of people including Muslims. Sikhs and Hindus don’t have the problems Alice claims she has with these schools. The eminent atheist philosopher Mary Miidgeley was actually a staunch advocate of religious expression and she was famous for puncturing the pretensions of divisive scientific popularisers such as Richard Dawkins. Mary Midgley would have been on Wendy Roberts side and would have set Alice Roberts straight in the same way she did Richard Dawkins. It’s just comes across as so petty and it’s obvious that Alice is exaggerating the issues and hiding behind the cloak of scientific authority to promote her own dogma otherwise why would she have even sent her own children to these schools just because there wasn’t a local “secular” school. If C of E really went against all her principles and morals she shouldn’t have let her children anywhere near a C of E school!! She had the resources for private education and home schooling and yet still sent her children to a school she claims is harmful in some way. She’s clearly taken full advantage of her reputation as a scientific populariser to sensationalise the issues to promote her own agenda and dogma. The fact is that “science” is just a word an adjective to describe the methodological approach found in all subjects such as mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, logic and aspects of theology such as hermeneutics. The natural sciences merits no monopoly on knowledge and meaning which is why there are an array of different (methodological approaches) for accessing knowledge and truth about reality and existence. The fact that Alice’s mother Wendy had to step in to explain these scientific facts to her speaks volumes. People should be allowed to follow any belief system that they feel gives them comfort joy, meaning and purpose without being demonised as long as they don’t harm anyone else or impinge on their human rights. ❤️
@@georgedoyle7971 There's a big difference between having personal beliefs in the existance of the supernatural and having religious dogmas and claims of knowledge of divine commandments and trying to impose religious rules and regulations on others. Unfortunately, that is what organised religion does - it tells people they need to follow their rules and rituals, it feeds them stories of afterlives with angels, demons and capricious gods, and try to influence people's behaviours based on those stories. And let's not forget that when the Church had political power, they used to make their dogams into laws which brought severe punishments for disobedience. There is no such thing as "faith based" atheism. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of gods, a disbelief, not a belief in and of itself. The concepts of knowledge, reason and truth aren't part of atheism - they are fundamental concepts that all humans use regardless of religious belief. > "The only way to avoid being a metaphysician in a philosophical debate about values is to say nothing." Yet the religious never shut up as they try to ram their metaphysical views onto everyone else's throats. > "I’m not appealing to authority but the famous scientist and Director of the Genome project who is now the Director of the National Institute for Health is a convinced Christian." He is indeed, which does show that the Christians who equate the theory of evolution by natural selection with atheism are quite ignorant, as you can be Christian and still accept the scientific findings about evolution. One thing to note though, Francis Collins reasoning for becoming a Christian isn't rooted in science, nor is it rational as he himself has admitted. It's perfectly fine to have to have personal beliefs that are irrational, but when insisting that others should adopt them too, as churches do, and also submit to the behavioral rules that these churches promote, then you will get pushback and you should need much better reasons than "faith" - which is why we ask for evidence and reason. Regarding Church of England schools, Alice sends her kids to such a school because she made a compromise - aside from the religious views, the school is quite good (a lot of CofE schools are quite good by the way), so her kids will actually get a good education while the religious aspect will be mitigated at home. Ideally though, I'm sure she would prefer it if these schools were entirely secular. Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus who send their kids to CofE schools make the same compromises that Alice has done - they handle the religious & ethical education at home and at their mosques, synagogues, and temples. > "People should be allowed to follow any belief system that they feel gives them comfort joy, meaning and purpose without being demonised as long as they don’t harm anyone else or impinge on their human rights." Absolutely they should. But again, the discussion was about religious institutions having political influence, which they shouldn't.
@@stevious7278 the freedom to exist in a society not dictated by irrational beliefs and dogma. The freedom to follow a religion or not without it affecting one's right to participate in society on an equal footing to anyone else.
Surely 'democratic freedoms' would allow all views to be expressed - including religious and non-religious one? By restricting views and access to politics, it sounds as if the Humanists have become the very 'irrational and dogmatic' types they seek to oppose!
Redundant question. In order for religion to exist people have to think something exists that doesn't. Politics is exactly the same. they both have a mandate that requires people to hand over free will for their own good. It never works in the favor of people in mass, only a few. My question is how educated people allow their mind to be controlled by ANYONE else?
so why does church of england have a place in the house of commons and gets supported with tax money from all of us, even tho only a small % are actually christian here
Its not the House of Commons, the C of E has 26 automatic places all allocated to Bishops in the House of Lords plus the head of the Church is the Queen. It is a throwback to Henry the VIII's time. In fact oganisations like the National Trust have more members than the Church of England so why can't they have some of the allocation!
I,m Scottish and it irks me that prelates from the Church of England can legislate whereas the Church of Scotland has no representation! Neither has the Roman Catholic church? The Treaty of Union 1707 needs revised! It's blatant arrogance for this organisation to legislate when it only represents England! It should be removed!!
As for HM The Queen being head of the Church of England, when she comes to Scotland,she is but a Church of Scotland member, her ancestor Charles 2 tried to make himself head of the Church Scotland to be told he was but God,s silly vassal ! The monarch has no power over the C of S !!
This is worse in Indonesia with Islam. Some people say religion should stay out of politics, but political Muslims say that the prophet himself was involved in politics. It is hard to separate religion from politics here.
We have a separation of church and state mandate (Establishment Clause) in the 1st amendment of the Bill, of Rights but it isn't enforced by the s courts in the way that the framers had intended. I'm an American and I'm also a Humanist. We really do exist in the land of Talibornagains.
@@epistte You actually do have separation of church and state. What you are talking about is certain supreme court justices - who happen to be Christian - having views and values that are in line with Christian teaching. In the UK we have bishops automatically appointed to the upper house (called Lords rather than senators but much the same thing) - these are high officials in the church also taking high office in the state. Can you see how that is a very different thing?
Of course religion should stay out of politics. Religion deals with Myths not reality! I want my politics to reflect the reality that I live in and plan for that reality.
Dear Alice, complement and admiration for your knowledge based opinions and articulations. We need to innovate more efficient methods to teach and to educate people to get rid of religious rigidity.
In 2020 it’s ridiculous that there is an official state religion, and why on earth are bishops still holding 26 seats in the House of Lords? It makes us a laughing stock.
@@feedthewhale4266 I agree, both for the fact it should be more gender neutrally a House of Peers and also for the ridiculous hereditary peerage system which is insane. Having bishops able to influence and amend legislation (and they do) is just the turd on the cake.
Religious followers should have the right to participate in politics, as should everyone else. However, being a religious believer should not entitle one to special privileges, such as House of Lords membership, charity status, national law set-asides (e.g. LGBT-discrimination), mandated services in schools, Sharia coercion etc.
Religious people should not have a platform because they have believe in an imaginary friend more than another person. Alice Roberts is brilliant and has given up a lot to take her role.
@@feedthewhale4266 No we should stop people brainwashing our children about imaginary friends. When we got to a certain age we were told Santa was not real. They should do the same about Jesus and God.
Absolute tosh, there is no "atheist ideology" , we're simply unconvinced in the existence of "gods". That's it. Some atheists are left wing, some right wing, the only thing we have in common is a lack of belief. That's it. The minute you attempt any kind of indoctrination on my kids, you're going to have a little problem. Religion poisons everything
@@nektekket852 Lol, right..it amazes me just how many dummies out there lack basic understanding of what atheism actually is, or what it entails. How can these people be so stupid?
A church should have the same right to speak out as any other organisation or company does, but should not have a privileged position. One of many traditional hold-outs from undemocratic times.
@@feedthewhale4266 I assume you mean regarding slavery? Matt Dillahunty presents the evidence, chapter and verse, in response to an apologist. That the bible condones slavery is indisputable. It was used to justify the slave trade. If you disagree perhaps you could discuss it with him on the Atheist Experience aired on Sundays. Also, NOWHERE in the bible does it say that it is wrong for a human being to own another. You would expect that to be one of the key commandments, along with not committing rape... even more reason not to take the bible as a source of morality. A source of immorality? Certainly. ruclips.net/video/TDL0FttPX-4/видео.html
@@feedthewhale4266 Did you even bother to look at the video!? Or are you in the habit of just closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears and totally ignoring the glaring evidence that IS in that vile work called the bible? Exodus 21:20-21 tells you what you can do with your slave and states that the slave is your PROPERTY! Though I can't remember the verse off hand the bible even says to buy your slaves from the heathen. Now, why would a god that does not condone slavery instruct his people on when to get slaves and how to treat them? By not explicitly condemning slavery amongst instructions on how to obtain and treat slaves is implicitly condoning it. If I was god I would sure as hell make sure that this point was crystal clear in my holy book (amongst other things conveniently left out), I certainly wouldn't be telling my people how to engage in the vile practice. I suggest you take off those god blinkers of yours and take a good look at your 'holy' book... I wonder if you've even read it cover to cover! Leviticus 25:44-46, there's another one for you.
@@feedthewhale4266 What a load of deflective steaming bullshit. Bottom line -and you can try to varnish it as much as you like - the bible condones, and therefore the god of the bible condones, the ownership of another human being a.k.a. slavery.. End of.
Theres a difference between having religious representation in politics, and religion having power in politics. Religion has far too much of the latter and doesn't do particularly well at representing religious individuals if they happen to be female, or part of the LGBTQ community.
True, but I would argue that religion shouldn't even have representation in politics, because its a slippery slope. Nobody would take a Zeusist or Thorist seriously had you gathered Hellenic pantheon parties to be represented in the political arena of the 21st century, so why are the christian and muslim cults any different? Only human rights, and rationality have place editing policies. I am not banishing religious groups from participating in society, but they should stay out of politics. They are already tax exempt as is, and they already engage in delusions and indoctrinated children. They have enough privilege as is..
What has been a clear example of a worrisome ease in which an individual could gather support from people of faith is the disconcerting relationship of the current president of the United States with various faith-based institutions. Some Evangelical and Catholic church leaders and some of the attendees of their churches, just to mention a few, are invested in a president who is willing to further their ideologies in exchange for their support. I am not advocating for the removal of belief from the individual, I am advocating for political, justice, and health institutions, just to name a few and which are for all people, to be grounded in the equality enabling constructs of secularism. ⚖️🌸
Religion should be treated for what it is; an opinion. Until one of them can provide empirical proof that their invisible friend is for real then their opinion has no more value than that of the guy down the pub.
@@feedthewhale4266 But the demonym "British" entails culture and history..whereas religion is purely theology and faith in the supernatural. Don't you dare compare the two..
@@feedthewhale4266 A nationality may not be the best example, but the point still stands that theology is merely belief, dogma and ideology. It has no precedent..at least a British nationality is more or less tangible regardless of subcultural implications and varying factors. At least citizenship doesn't invoke supernatural forces but acts upon human cultures. Do not conflate the two..
@@feedthewhale4266 Passports are tangible..and humans are tribal hence territories and borders. Yes, you can argue they are imaginary constructs, which they are..but what's even more imaginary is the supernatural which cannot in any way be demonstrated
@@feedthewhale4266 Primal instinct..so what? Doesn't make it legit or true. There are thousands of conflicting narratives anyhow. Who is right? Christians? Muslims? Hindus? If so, who specifically? Catholics? Orthodox? Haredim?
@@feedthewhale4266 Religions claim exclusivity, or else they wouldn't be religions. The whole point is to presume the supernatural and presupposing the nature of reality. There's a reason they all contradict one another, even amongst themselves. Thousands of conflicting sects and denominations..it never ends. Tradition implies we do something simply because it was passed down from our predecessors. Some things are nice to pass down, are quite cheerful, positive and useful. We have to think things through, and religious inheritance isn't positive as it inculcates children into unfounded supernatural beliefs and dogmas. You can pass on a recipe or heirloom to your child, these are tangible, whereas passing on tales of prophets and messiahs isn't fruitful, especially when they are incessantly told they are truths.
Hi iam Dennis mugambi, I know you don't know me, you owe me nothing just talking out, life too short father of two really struggling and desperate kindly I'm human and everyone needs help sometimes, iam really struggling and desperate, my kid's are really starving and it's hurting to a parent, iam on odd job's that don't come easy always, they are on and off. Please as a parent a human being and a parent all iam asking is, mercy, support of one or two meal, so that when I go out to hustle i will know ican manage so tht they don't starve please i beg. .please ibeg in God's name consider us we're human being too before it's too late please. Thanks 🙏 🙏
What a great discussion. While I agree with the humanists here, I must say that the reverend and the rabbi are not the worst examples of god botherers.
And than i ask my self where this moral degredation came from and the state of western civilization/society today - say thanks to the Alice Roberts and alikes for that!
It's one thing having religion inform an individual's political choices (we can't stop that anyway). But no way should religion be adopted by governments. Which religion would we choose? And which interpretation of that religion should we give preferential influence to? The American situation shows that a candidate's character is less important to voters than his/her endorsement of religious faith groups. In other words, you can be a despicable human being like Donald Trump, and still get voted in, as long as you fein religiosity.
While I wholeheartedly agree that religion and politics "never the twain should mix"; it is a difficult position to argue. After all aren't all of our western "democracies" built on a foundation of the 10 commandments, and as such, impossible to extricate from that poisonous web? Here in Australia every session of parliament begins with a very heartfelt and pious (I'm sure) recitation of the lord's prayer. And my silly education lead me to believe that the Westminster system was founded on the separation of church and state.
@@andybeans5790 I think that you will find that "enacted" doesn't have quite the same meaning as "built on a foundation of"; making your comment moot. Unless you are simply trying to be argumentative; but I'm afraid you fail there as there is nothing to be learned from pointless bickering.
It's hard to claim that Western democracies are built on the 10 commandments, when some of the fundamental civil rights we have in Western democracies are directly antithetical to many of those commandments, and where they're compatible then they are quite basic social laws that can be found in other non-Abrahamic cultures too. I would say that modern Western democracies are based largely on the political and philosophical writings of the Enlightenment period, but some of the thinking is indeed rooted in religion of course. Let's look at the 10 commandments though - I'm listing them in short form: 1. I am the Lord your God: you shall have no other gods but me. This commandment is actually against the freedom of religion, a civil right that Western democracies have. In a Western democracy you are have the right to follow whatever religion you want, and you can worship your own god or gods. 2. You shall not make for yourself any idol. Again, this rule is against the freedom of religion, which allows you to make and pray to your idols. 3. You shall not dishonour the name of the Lord your God. In Western democracies, you have the right of freedom of expression, which includes the right to blaspheme. 4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. If you think of weekends as time off from work - they're not universally enforced as people in many industries work during the weekend, nor do we have to keep our weekends "holy", but this idea of taking a break from work exists in other non-Abrahamic cultures, and it's a matter of social rights, of work-life balance. 5. Honour your father and mother. Again, this is quite a basic social norm common to all cultures. But in Western democracies you are not legally required to honour them. 6. You shall not commit murder. Common rule against murder regardless of religion - this is fundamental to having a functional society, not specific to Abrahamic religions. 7. You shall not commit adultery. Are you sure this is a law in Western democracies? It's more of a social norm rather than a law. 8. You shall not steal. Again, a rule common to all functional societies regardless of religion. 9. You shall not be a false witness. This one is quite interesting and I think the most sophisticated of the 10 commandments. I would probably agree with you that in our Western cultures this one rule has influenced at least some legal behaviours (e.g. swearing on a Bible in a court of law). 10. You shall not covet anything which belongs to your neighbour. This is again not something that's codified in our legal system. In fact, a lot of modern society is built on comparing oneself with your neighbours and others in general, as this sort of "coveting" has been a motivator for many people and businesses. While I think this is a good personal rule to live by, found in Buddhism and other philosophies too, this is absolutely not something that should be codified in a legal manner, as it would infringe on people's freedom of thought.
@@El3ctr0Lun4 You seem to have missed a crucial word in my comment; the word FOUNDATION. Please go and read it again. Now if you don't know anything about construction, let me inform you that there are many materials that can be used as foundations and in many cases, the type of building that can be built is determined by the properties of the foundation. I'm pretty sure I need not explain further; that you can imagine the consequences of, say, sand as a foundation as opposed to concrete. I'm fairly certain that you would agree that a building is not just the foundation; and vice-a-versa, a foundation is not a building. You did construct a well thought out argument, but unfortunately is was built on a false foundation; that being that I said Western democracies were built on the 10 commandments. In fact, I did not. In future if you wish to debate somebody; may I suggest that you pay a little more attention to what is actually said, before you begin constructing your counter argument in your head, otherwise all you are doing is arguing with yourself; and that isn't very productive is it?
@@El3ctr0Lun4 Oh, and if you believe you are free, or have free will in any way, shape, or form; I'd like to suggest a video on YT called "loving your servitude". It may (or may not) open your eyes a little to the truth of the reality of this world. If you are a rational, adult human being with the capacity for critical thinking; and what very, very little I know of you, I would say there is evidence that you are. Please take 20mins of your time to watch it. Enjoy your life and happy travels.
science has become a religion... cult of personality has become religion... politics has become a religion... but the worst religion is the state and it's coming, its coming for us all and people rush to religion in times of highly stressful times... as a humanist I'd pick another more pressing fight...
@@PianoDentist a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices the life or state of a monk, nun, etc. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience
@@twoforty252 BBC definition of religion is quite broad. Most people think of religious beliefs compared to other types of beliefs as having a supernatural or ontological basis. Perhaps if you had said, the above examples can have something in common with religion, then OK I guess. In other words, a sometimes irrational, unswerving, blind adherence to a set of ideas or beliefs.
@@twoforty252 congratulations on cutting and pasting a dictionary definition which, whilst correct in a technical sense, completely misses the point. Science doesn’t fit the definition of a religion neither legally nor colloquially. Word games are clever but conversations are going to go nowhere while people play with fringe definitions and declare themselves correct by usage of a narrow interpretation of the meaning of a word. You do yourself no favours and shut yourself out of discussion when you intentionally interpret words and deploy them in a way not used by those you wish to communicate with. Pointing to the dictionary in this case does nothing to strengthen your argument.
@@twoforty252 I've read your first comment a few times and really can't see what point you think you're making. Science and the scientific method is a religion? Please explain how you come to that conclusion. You define everything as a religion?! You're a humanist and you don't see a problem with religion involving itself with politics? Should we make laws on humanist principles and evidence or based upon religion's beliefs? Which religions should we consult and base our laws on?
Should religion stay out of politics? - No. How is it possible for any individual/politician/group to make political expressions without exercising some level of decision based on their views and belief (whether religious or secular). A system that prohibits the expression of religious views would be an apolitical entity. The Greek origin of the word politics is 'politiká' meaning city thereby including all citizens and views.
Yes, they should stay out of politics. Because religion (especially Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is not based on tolerance, pluralism. They see their truth as the only one truth and that it should be imposed on all people. If it were allowed to, religion would still be doing that today. Please, read some History books.
@@Liberated_from_Religion Hi , Thanks for responding to my comment. I enjoyed the irony of your comment - calling for the exclusion of religious people from politics in the name of 'tolerance' and 'pluralism'. Excellent thesis!! 🤗 Regarding reading more history books, I studied History at university, so I have read a fair few history books in my time - mostly of European history and the cultural revolution in China. I've read enough to know and understand that the least to pluralist and tolerant nations have tended to be absolutist monarchist/communist/atheist states where religious thought is oppressed and religious expressions are strictly forbidden from public spaces - see USSR, North Korea, Cambodia under Pol Pot and China (although this has liberalised somewhat recently). Apóstolo da Razão, a question for you: Why is it that countries which currently guarantee the highest level of political freedom, rights to free speech/expressions have originated from predominately Christian nations (USA, UK, European nations etc)?
@@Liberated_from_Religion I wouldn't consider that to be a red herring but a legitimate point to make. Well done for not attempting to answer the question.
@@edmund5221 I said the Bible and the Quran clearly show (you just need to read them) that these religions are not based on tolerance (reason why they spent many centuries persecuting, torturing and killing) and you talk about North Korea. Ridiculous Red Herring Fallacy.
![KAYTRANADA - Witchy (feat. Childish Gambino) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jGK3YVmGZ3Y/mqdefault.jpg)
Oh Alice thank you so much for being you and bringing rational thought to the discussion. Love your mind.
I love the way that Alice Roberts would not allow herself to be stopped. Well done on pressing home.
Religion should most certainly stay out of politics.
Amen to that!!!
I am not religious but why should anyone be prevented from making a political comment?
@@christaylor9247
Well said! Because the materialistic/atheistic paradigm is itself a metaphysical, that is a philosophical presupposition that can not even be grounded in materialism. It’s faith based! The belief in knowledge, reason and “truth” is faith based from the perspective of a materialist as these are metaphysical presuppositions. So we are all on equal footing. Equally, methodological naturalism (science) is supposed to be metaphysically neutral so you can’t appeal to scientific authority to ram your own set of metaphysical beliefs regarding materialism or Humanism down everybody else’s throats. The only way to avoid being a metaphysician in a philosophical debate about values is to say nothing. The conflict between science and religious expression is a myth spread by militant atheists as it is a false dichotomy. I’m not appealing to authority but the famous scientist and Director of the Genome project who is now the Director of the National Institute for Health is a convinced Christian. I really feel sorry for Alice’s mum. It’s a bit petty and self contradictory for Alice to hide behind the cloak of scientific authority to complain about C of E schools whilst sending her own children to said harmful C of E school because you clearly know they are not harmful and are fit for purpose. The reason these schools do so well is because they have a good ethos and they are so well established because they were originally funded from donations through church which is why they exist in the first place. So why try to fix something that isn’t broken. Alice is a successful and privileged women and if you want to promote humanism no one is stopping you from setting up humanist schools. The irony is that initially Humanists tried to open up Humanist churches as they recognised the importance of freedom of religious expression but they failed as no one wanted to worship man. If they had been successful then maybe we would have had established Humanist schools with universal values that would be with in everyones best interests for the government to support. C of E schools clearly share universal values with everyone including Humanists which is why Alice had no problem sending her own children there and the vast majority of people including Muslims. Sikhs and Hindus don’t have the problems Alice claims she has with these schools. The eminent atheist philosopher Mary Miidgeley was actually a staunch advocate of religious expression and she was famous for puncturing the pretensions of divisive scientific popularisers such as Richard Dawkins. Mary Midgley would have been on Wendy Roberts side and would have set Alice Roberts straight in the same way she did Richard Dawkins. It’s just comes across as so petty and it’s obvious that Alice is exaggerating the issues and hiding behind the cloak of scientific authority to promote her own dogma otherwise why would she have even sent her own children to these schools just because there wasn’t a local “secular” school. If C of E really went against all her principles and morals she shouldn’t have let her children anywhere near a C of E school!! She had the resources for private education and home schooling and yet still sent her children to a school she claims is harmful in some way. She’s clearly taken full advantage of her reputation as a scientific populariser to sensationalise the issues to promote her own agenda and dogma. The fact is that “science” is just a word an adjective to describe the methodological approach found in all subjects such as mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, logic and aspects of theology such as hermeneutics. The natural sciences merits no monopoly on knowledge and meaning which is why there are an array of different (methodological approaches) for accessing knowledge and truth about reality and existence. The fact that Alice’s mother Wendy had to step in to explain these scientific facts to her speaks volumes. People should be allowed to follow any belief system that they feel gives them comfort joy, meaning and purpose without being demonised as long as they don’t harm anyone else or impinge on their human rights.
❤️
@@georgedoyle7971 There's a big difference between having personal beliefs in the existance of the supernatural and having religious dogmas and claims of knowledge of divine commandments and trying to impose religious rules and regulations on others. Unfortunately, that is what organised religion does - it tells people they need to follow their rules and rituals, it feeds them stories of afterlives with angels, demons and capricious gods, and try to influence people's behaviours based on those stories. And let's not forget that when the Church had political power, they used to make their dogams into laws which brought severe punishments for disobedience.
There is no such thing as "faith based" atheism. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of gods, a disbelief, not a belief in and of itself. The concepts of knowledge, reason and truth aren't part of atheism - they are fundamental concepts that all humans use regardless of religious belief.
> "The only way to avoid being a metaphysician in a philosophical debate about values is to say nothing."
Yet the religious never shut up as they try to ram their metaphysical views onto everyone else's throats.
> "I’m not appealing to authority but the famous scientist and Director of the Genome project who is now the Director of the National Institute for Health is a convinced Christian."
He is indeed, which does show that the Christians who equate the theory of evolution by natural selection with atheism are quite ignorant, as you can be Christian and still accept the scientific findings about evolution. One thing to note though, Francis Collins reasoning for becoming a Christian isn't rooted in science, nor is it rational as he himself has admitted. It's perfectly fine to have to have personal beliefs that are irrational, but when insisting that others should adopt them too, as churches do, and also submit to the behavioral rules that these churches promote, then you will get pushback and you should need much better reasons than "faith" - which is why we ask for evidence and reason.
Regarding Church of England schools, Alice sends her kids to such a school because she made a compromise - aside from the religious views, the school is quite good (a lot of CofE schools are quite good by the way), so her kids will actually get a good education while the religious aspect will be mitigated at home. Ideally though, I'm sure she would prefer it if these schools were entirely secular. Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus who send their kids to CofE schools make the same compromises that Alice has done - they handle the religious & ethical education at home and at their mosques, synagogues, and temples.
> "People should be allowed to follow any belief system that they feel gives them comfort joy, meaning and purpose without being demonised as long as they don’t harm anyone else or impinge on their human rights."
Absolutely they should. But again, the discussion was about religious institutions having political influence, which they shouldn't.
@stanley One of the ironies being that the US does this but religion informs much of the way the senate thinks/behaves.
Religion should absolutely stay out of politics. If not then our democratic freedoms would go out of the window.
And what, pray tell, would those democratic freedoms be?
@@stevious7278 the freedom to exist in a society not dictated by irrational beliefs and dogma. The freedom to follow a religion or not without it affecting one's right to participate in society on an equal footing to anyone else.
@@andybeans5790
I totally agree with you Andy. 👍👍
Amen to that!!!
Surely 'democratic freedoms' would allow all views to be expressed - including religious and non-religious one? By restricting views and access to politics, it sounds as if the Humanists have become the very 'irrational and dogmatic' types they seek to oppose!
Prof. Alice Roberts 👍👍👍👍
We are moral despite any god or religion.
Redundant question. In order for religion to exist people have to think something exists that doesn't. Politics is exactly the same. they both have a mandate that requires people to hand over free will for their own good. It never works in the favor of people in mass, only a few. My question is how educated people allow their mind to be controlled by ANYONE else?
so why does church of england have a place in the house of commons and gets supported with tax money from all of us, even tho only a small % are actually christian here
It’s a left over from history, when religion had a strong choke hold on our society.
Its not the House of Commons, the C of E has 26 automatic places all allocated to Bishops in the House of Lords plus the head of the Church is the Queen. It is a throwback to Henry the VIII's time. In fact oganisations like the National Trust have more members than the Church of England so why can't they have some of the allocation!
I,m Scottish and it irks me that prelates from the Church of England can legislate whereas the Church of Scotland has no representation! Neither has the Roman Catholic church?
The Treaty of Union 1707 needs revised!
It's blatant arrogance for this organisation to legislate when it only represents England! It should be removed!!
As for HM The Queen being head of the Church of England, when she comes to Scotland,she is but a Church of Scotland member, her ancestor Charles 2 tried to make himself head of the Church Scotland to be told he was but God,s silly vassal ! The monarch has no power over the C of S !!
@@georgejob7544 it represent English c of e only most of the English subject have no affiliation
This is worse in Indonesia with Islam. Some people say religion should stay out of politics, but political Muslims say that the prophet himself was involved in politics. It is hard to separate religion from politics here.
It would be awful if we had the situation that's developed in the USA...
Gott mit uns. The U.S. is 'under Trump', an arrogant and dangerous country.
We have a separation of church and state mandate (Establishment Clause) in the 1st amendment of the Bill, of Rights but it isn't enforced by the s courts in the way that the framers had intended. I'm an American and I'm also a Humanist. We really do exist in the land of Talibornagains.
@@epistte You actually do have separation of church and state. What you are talking about is certain supreme court justices - who happen to be Christian - having views and values that are in line with Christian teaching.
In the UK we have bishops automatically appointed to the upper house (called Lords rather than senators but much the same thing) - these are high officials in the church also taking high office in the state.
Can you see how that is a very different thing?
I love a good 12minute debate. Really gets to the bottom of a challenging topic!
Of course religion should stay out of politics. Religion deals with Myths not reality!
I want my politics to reflect the reality that I live in and plan for that reality.
@@feedthewhale4266
I would hope it was a secular reality.
@@feedthewhale4266
Much better than the inquisitions, heretic burnings and Witch Trials that came before. Thank you for asking. 🙂
Spot on Budd
Dear Alice, complement and admiration for your knowledge based opinions and articulations. We need to innovate more efficient methods to teach and to educate people to get rid of religious rigidity.
In 2020 it’s ridiculous that there is an official state religion, and why on earth are bishops still holding 26 seats in the House of Lords? It makes us a laughing stock.
@@feedthewhale4266 I agree, both for the fact it should be more gender neutrally a House of Peers and also for the ridiculous hereditary peerage system which is insane. Having bishops able to influence and amend legislation (and they do) is just the turd on the cake.
Yup, Paul..it's embarrassing isn't it?
Religious followers should have the right to participate in politics, as should everyone else. However, being a religious believer should not entitle one to special privileges, such as House of Lords membership, charity status, national law set-asides (e.g. LGBT-discrimination), mandated services in schools, Sharia coercion etc.
Religion should stay way way out
Well done Alice
12 minutes, was that it? Anyone who prays to an invisible being in the sky should have no say in anything.
Dr Alice Roberts speaks perfect, absolute, sense
So the Anglican Church (the English church) gets to talk for the other nations in the union!
A hang up from colonialism.
England is officially a Christian state. I guess you need take your gripe up with the BBC.
Religious people should not have a platform because they have believe in an imaginary friend more than another person. Alice Roberts is brilliant and has given up a lot to take her role.
@@feedthewhale4266 No we should stop people brainwashing our children about imaginary friends. When we got to a certain age we were told Santa was not real. They should do the same about Jesus and God.
@@feedthewhale4266 What I guess you want to tell them about something you will never see but feel. It sounds like a catholic priest abusing children.
Absolute tosh, there is no "atheist ideology" , we're simply unconvinced in the existence of "gods". That's it. Some atheists are left wing, some right wing, the only thing we have in common is a lack of belief. That's it. The minute you attempt any kind of indoctrination on my kids, you're going to have a little problem. Religion poisons everything
@@feedthewhale4266 Who said anything about Marxism? Only you did. People who conflate irreligiosity with marxism are the epitome of stupidity.
@@nektekket852 Lol, right..it amazes me just how many dummies out there lack basic understanding of what atheism actually is, or what it entails. How can these people be so stupid?
A church should have the same right to speak out as any other organisation or company does, but should not have a privileged position. One of many traditional hold-outs from undemocratic times.
Long story short, YES..a big fat YES.
Religion should stay out of politics
Religion AND politics should stay out of everything.
The bible condones slavery, we don't need the bible or any other 'holy' book to dictate our morals, humanity is better than that.
@@feedthewhale4266 I assume you mean regarding slavery? Matt Dillahunty presents the evidence, chapter and verse, in response to an apologist. That the bible condones slavery is indisputable. It was used to justify the slave trade. If you disagree perhaps you could discuss it with him on the Atheist Experience aired on Sundays. Also, NOWHERE in the bible does it say that it is wrong for a human being to own another. You would expect that to be one of the key commandments, along with not committing rape... even more reason not to take the bible as a source of morality. A source of immorality? Certainly.
ruclips.net/video/TDL0FttPX-4/видео.html
@@feedthewhale4266 Did you even bother to look at the video!? Or are you in the habit of just closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears and totally ignoring the glaring evidence that IS in that vile work called the bible? Exodus 21:20-21 tells you what you can do with your slave and states that the slave is your PROPERTY! Though I can't remember the verse off hand the bible even says to buy your slaves from the heathen. Now, why would a god that does not condone slavery instruct his people on when to get slaves and how to treat them? By not explicitly condemning slavery amongst instructions on how to obtain and treat slaves is implicitly condoning it. If I was god I would sure as hell make sure that this point was crystal clear in my holy book (amongst other things conveniently left out), I certainly wouldn't be telling my people how to engage in the vile practice. I suggest you take off those god blinkers of yours and take a good look at your 'holy' book... I wonder if you've even read it cover to cover!
Leviticus 25:44-46, there's another one for you.
@@feedthewhale4266 So, ignoring your pathetic deflection, you concede that the bible condones slavery. I suppose that's something at least.
@@feedthewhale4266 Simple, owning another human being, a practice which we have already established is condoned by the bible.
@@feedthewhale4266 What a load of deflective steaming bullshit. Bottom line -and you can try to varnish it as much as you like - the bible condones, and therefore the god of the bible condones, the ownership of another human being a.k.a. slavery.. End of.
Don't turn UK to USA please .
Nothing good ever happens when religion and politics mix.
Ridiculous. How can a grown adult still believe in magic and incantations in 2021.
Brilliant, Alice, as usual.
Alice knows the score!
Theres a difference between having religious representation in politics, and religion having power in politics. Religion has far too much of the latter and doesn't do particularly well at representing religious individuals if they happen to be female, or part of the LGBTQ community.
True, but I would argue that religion shouldn't even have representation in politics, because its a slippery slope. Nobody would take a Zeusist or Thorist seriously had you gathered Hellenic pantheon parties to be represented in the political arena of the 21st century, so why are the christian and muslim cults any different? Only human rights, and rationality have place editing policies. I am not banishing religious groups from participating in society, but they should stay out of politics. They are already tax exempt as is, and they already engage in delusions and indoctrinated children. They have enough privilege as is..
The question that has been answered centuries ago.
Religion is needed in politics
Whose religion? Islam? Astarte? Zoroastrianism? Hinduism? Ba'Hai? Or would that be your religion Donna? Let me guess.....
The Flying Spaghetti Monster has the best morals.
He should be represented
Religion shouldn't have a state role.
In a word 'yes'.
Religous is a faith not relying on fact , so how can religion play any part in real life politics.
Has to subscribe to this channel lol . It’s gotta full of gems
Mixing religion and politics makes both worse. If you want to inject politics in to your religion you must not value your religion very much.
What has been a clear example of a worrisome ease in which an individual could gather support from people of faith is the disconcerting relationship of the current president of the United States with various faith-based institutions. Some Evangelical and Catholic church leaders and some of the attendees of their churches, just to mention a few, are invested in a president who is willing to further their ideologies in exchange for their support.
I am not advocating for the removal of belief from the individual, I am advocating for political, justice, and health institutions, just to name a few and which are for all people, to be grounded in the equality enabling constructs of secularism.
⚖️🌸
Yes, because there is no supernatural being, a god or otherwise!
God is a concept by which we measure our pain...
Religion should be treated for what it is; an opinion.
Until one of them can provide empirical proof that their invisible friend is for real then their opinion has no more value than that of the guy down the pub.
@@feedthewhale4266 But the demonym "British" entails culture and history..whereas religion is purely theology and faith in the supernatural. Don't you dare compare the two..
@@feedthewhale4266 A nationality may not be the best example, but the point still stands that theology is merely belief, dogma and ideology. It has no precedent..at least a British nationality is more or less tangible regardless of subcultural implications and varying factors. At least citizenship doesn't invoke supernatural forces but acts upon human cultures. Do not conflate the two..
@@feedthewhale4266 Passports are tangible..and humans are tribal hence territories and borders. Yes, you can argue they are imaginary constructs, which they are..but what's even more imaginary is the supernatural which cannot in any way be demonstrated
@@feedthewhale4266 Primal instinct..so what? Doesn't make it legit or true. There are thousands of conflicting narratives anyhow. Who is right? Christians? Muslims? Hindus? If so, who specifically? Catholics? Orthodox? Haredim?
@@feedthewhale4266 Religions claim exclusivity, or else they wouldn't be religions. The whole point is to presume the supernatural and presupposing the nature of reality. There's a reason they all contradict one another, even amongst themselves. Thousands of conflicting sects and denominations..it never ends. Tradition implies we do something simply because it was passed down from our predecessors. Some things are nice to pass down, are quite cheerful, positive and useful. We have to think things through, and religious inheritance isn't positive as it inculcates children into unfounded supernatural beliefs and dogmas. You can pass on a recipe or heirloom to your child, these are tangible, whereas passing on tales of prophets and messiahs isn't fruitful, especially when they are incessantly told they are truths.
ABSOLUTELY. ALL , RELIGION
So ask a question and then stop the answer 🤔
An ancient argument. Religion has no place in government. None. Not one word.
I like how these guys have some points but most of the commenters are just lost lol
Oh dear
In the not so far future, there will be more Muslims in the UK than Christians. Will imams then sit in the House of Parliament,
Hi iam Dennis mugambi, I know you don't know me, you owe me nothing just talking out, life too short father of two really struggling and desperate kindly I'm human and everyone needs help sometimes, iam really struggling and desperate, my kid's are really starving and it's hurting to a parent, iam on odd job's that don't come easy always, they are on and off. Please as a parent a human being and a parent all iam asking is, mercy, support of one or two meal, so that when I go out to hustle i will know ican manage so tht they don't starve please i beg. .please ibeg in God's name consider us we're human being too before it's too late please. Thanks 🙏 🙏
Only four to one religionists on this one another load of good old BBC balance.
brilliant Alice well said.
Love how the country G B became English 😂 says it all.
Horrible
What a great discussion. While I agree with the humanists here, I must say that the reverend and the rabbi are not the worst examples of god botherers.
And than i ask my self where this moral degredation came from and the state of western civilization/society today - say thanks to the Alice Roberts and alikes for that!
yes, next.
if you are religious, great.
now, i dont mind religious leaders urging the government to stop being wankers tho. which this lot need a LOT
It's one thing having religion inform an individual's political choices (we can't stop that anyway).
But no way should religion be adopted by governments. Which religion would we choose? And which interpretation of that religion should we give preferential influence to?
The American situation shows that a candidate's character is less important to voters than his/her endorsement of religious faith groups.
In other words, you can be a despicable human being like Donald Trump, and still get voted in, as long as you fein religiosity.
BBC hahaha what to expect?
Interesting, no Muslim representative. I wonder why?
While I wholeheartedly agree that religion and politics "never the twain should mix"; it is a difficult position to argue. After all aren't all of our western "democracies" built on a foundation of the 10 commandments, and as such, impossible to extricate from that poisonous web?
Here in Australia every session of parliament begins with a very heartfelt and pious (I'm sure) recitation of the lord's prayer.
And my silly education lead me to believe that the Westminster system was founded on the separation of church and state.
Which of the ten commandments are enacted in Australian law? Adultery? Envy? Idolatry? Blasphemy and apostasy?
@@andybeans5790 I think that you will find that "enacted" doesn't have quite the same meaning as "built on a foundation of"; making your comment moot.
Unless you are simply trying to be argumentative; but I'm afraid you fail there as there is nothing to be learned from pointless bickering.
It's hard to claim that Western democracies are built on the 10 commandments, when some of the fundamental civil rights we have in Western democracies are directly antithetical to many of those commandments, and where they're compatible then they are quite basic social laws that can be found in other non-Abrahamic cultures too. I would say that modern Western democracies are based largely on the political and philosophical writings of the Enlightenment period, but some of the thinking is indeed rooted in religion of course.
Let's look at the 10 commandments though - I'm listing them in short form:
1. I am the Lord your God: you shall have no other gods but me.
This commandment is actually against the freedom of religion, a civil right that Western democracies have. In a Western democracy you are have the right to follow whatever religion you want, and you can worship your own god or gods.
2. You shall not make for yourself any idol.
Again, this rule is against the freedom of religion, which allows you to make and pray to your idols.
3. You shall not dishonour the name of the Lord your God.
In Western democracies, you have the right of freedom of expression, which includes the right to blaspheme.
4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
If you think of weekends as time off from work - they're not universally enforced as people in many industries work during the weekend, nor do we have to keep our weekends "holy", but this idea of taking a break from work exists in other non-Abrahamic cultures, and it's a matter of social rights, of work-life balance.
5. Honour your father and mother.
Again, this is quite a basic social norm common to all cultures. But in Western democracies you are not legally required to honour them.
6. You shall not commit murder.
Common rule against murder regardless of religion - this is fundamental to having a functional society, not specific to Abrahamic religions.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
Are you sure this is a law in Western democracies? It's more of a social norm rather than a law.
8. You shall not steal.
Again, a rule common to all functional societies regardless of religion.
9. You shall not be a false witness.
This one is quite interesting and I think the most sophisticated of the 10 commandments. I would probably agree with you that in our Western cultures this one rule has influenced at least some legal behaviours (e.g. swearing on a Bible in a court of law).
10. You shall not covet anything which belongs to your neighbour.
This is again not something that's codified in our legal system. In fact, a lot of modern society is built on comparing oneself with your neighbours and others in general, as this sort of "coveting" has been a motivator for many people and businesses. While I think this is a good personal rule to live by, found in Buddhism and other philosophies too, this is absolutely not something that should be codified in a legal manner, as it would infringe on people's freedom of thought.
@@El3ctr0Lun4 You seem to have missed a crucial word in my comment; the word FOUNDATION. Please go and read it again.
Now if you don't know anything about construction, let me inform you that there are many materials that can be used as foundations and in many cases, the type of building that can be built is determined by the properties of the foundation. I'm pretty sure I need not explain further; that you can imagine the consequences of, say, sand as a foundation as opposed to concrete.
I'm fairly certain that you would agree that a building is not just the foundation; and vice-a-versa, a foundation is not a building.
You did construct a well thought out argument, but unfortunately is was built on a false foundation; that being that I said Western democracies were built on the 10 commandments. In fact, I did not.
In future if you wish to debate somebody; may I suggest that you pay a little more attention to what is actually said, before you begin constructing your counter argument in your head, otherwise all you are doing is arguing with yourself; and that isn't very productive is it?
@@El3ctr0Lun4 Oh, and if you believe you are free, or have free will in any way, shape, or form; I'd like to suggest a video on YT called "loving your servitude".
It may (or may not) open your eyes a little to the truth of the reality of this world. If you are a rational, adult human being with the capacity for critical thinking; and what very, very little I know of you, I would say there is evidence that you are. Please take 20mins of your time to watch it.
Enjoy your life and happy travels.
"The Church is moral leader doesnt stand up" 😂 who is than Rockafellers and Bill Gates according to her? This in hard to beleave hahaha
science has become a religion... cult of personality has become religion... politics has become a religion... but the worst religion is the state and it's coming, its coming for us all and people rush to religion in times of highly stressful times... as a humanist I'd pick another more pressing fight...
sure, if you're going to redefine the word "religion". Unfortunately for you, most people generally have an idea of what is meant by religion.
@@PianoDentist
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience
@@twoforty252 BBC definition of religion is quite broad. Most people think of religious beliefs compared to other types of beliefs as having a supernatural or ontological basis. Perhaps if you had said, the above examples can have something in common with religion, then OK I guess. In other words, a sometimes irrational, unswerving, blind adherence to a set of ideas or beliefs.
@@twoforty252 congratulations on cutting and pasting a dictionary definition which, whilst correct in a technical sense, completely misses the point. Science doesn’t fit the definition of a religion neither legally nor colloquially. Word games are clever but conversations are going to go nowhere while people play with fringe definitions and declare themselves correct by usage of a narrow interpretation of the meaning of a word. You do yourself no favours and shut yourself out of discussion when you intentionally interpret words and deploy them in a way not used by those you wish to communicate with. Pointing to the dictionary in this case does nothing to strengthen your argument.
@@twoforty252 I've read your first comment a few times and really can't see what point you think you're making.
Science and the scientific method is a religion? Please explain how you come to that conclusion.
You define everything as a religion?! You're a humanist and you don't see a problem with religion involving itself with politics?
Should we make laws on humanist principles and evidence or based upon religion's beliefs?
Which religions should we consult and base our laws on?
Should religion stay out of politics? - No.
How is it possible for any individual/politician/group to make political expressions without exercising some level of decision based on their views and belief (whether religious or secular).
A system that prohibits the expression of religious views would be an apolitical entity. The Greek origin of the word politics is 'politiká' meaning city thereby including all citizens and views.
Yes, they should stay out of politics. Because religion (especially Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is not based on tolerance, pluralism. They see their truth as the only one truth and that it should be imposed on all people. If it were allowed to, religion would still be doing that today. Please, read some History books.
@@Liberated_from_Religion Hi , Thanks for responding to my comment.
I enjoyed the irony of your comment - calling for the exclusion of religious people from politics in the name of 'tolerance' and 'pluralism'. Excellent thesis!! 🤗
Regarding reading more history books, I studied History at university, so I have read a fair few history books in my time - mostly of European history and the cultural revolution in China. I've read enough to know and understand that the least to pluralist and tolerant nations have tended to be absolutist monarchist/communist/atheist states where religious thought is oppressed and religious expressions are strictly forbidden from public spaces - see USSR, North Korea, Cambodia under Pol Pot and China (although this has liberalised somewhat recently).
Apóstolo da Razão, a question for you: Why is it that countries which currently guarantee the highest level of political freedom, rights to free speech/expressions have originated from predominately Christian nations (USA, UK, European nations etc)?
@@edmund5221 Red Herring.
@@Liberated_from_Religion I wouldn't consider that to be a red herring but a legitimate point to make. Well done for not attempting to answer the question.
@@edmund5221 I said the Bible and the Quran clearly show (you just need to read them) that these religions are not based on tolerance (reason why they spent many centuries persecuting, torturing and killing) and you talk about North Korea. Ridiculous Red Herring Fallacy.