This is not a debate of religion vs. secularism. This is a debate about where and how the values in life are found, produced, and experienced. Some would argue that atheism has gone too far and there needs to be some point of unity to rally a sense of community around - what will fill a God shaped hole? And to what extent is religion defined by its practices versus the belief in a God?This animated, and often humorous debate brings together writer and philosopher Alain de Botton, Turner Prize winning artist Grayson Perry, writer and broadcaster Anne Atkins, and Benedictine monk Dom Antony Sutch, along with host Tony Curzon Price, editor of openDemocracy. Together our panel debate whether or not the practices associated with religion are appropriate for those without a God and if a God is removed from religion what is left but a system of control and why is that something some secularists want? This event was recorded on the 24th January 2012 at The Tabernacle, in London. The original producer was Executive Producer Hannah Kaye and editing was by Daisy Moll—We’d love to hear your feedback and what you think we should talk about next, who we should have on and what our future debates should be about. Send us an email or voice note with your thoughts to podcasts@intelligencesquared.com. At Intelligence Squared we’ve got our own online streaming platform, Intelligence Squared+ and we’d love you to give it a go. It’s packed with more than 20 years’ worth of video debates and conversations on the world’s most important topics as well as exclusive podcast content. Tune in to live events, ask your questions or watch on-demand, totally ad-free with hours of discussion to dive into. Visit intelligencesquaredplus.com to start watching today Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, Moses and the Ten Commandments, the parting of the Red Sea. These are a few of the stories from the Old Testament. And then there’s the New Testament, with its account of the life of Jesus, the Good Samaritan, the raising of Lazarus and the feeding of the five thousand. Whatever our creed or background, these stories are embedded in our consciousness. They inform our everyday speech and much of our art, music and literature. But which of these books is the greater? For this archive episode, we gathered expert voices to consider the question including writer and broadcaster Anne Atkins, Booker Prize-winning novelist and journalist Howard Jacobson, Professor of Theology and Culture in the African Diaspora Robert Beckford, and Anglican priest and presenter the Rev. Richard Coles. Hosting the discussion is broadcaster, comedian and author David Baddiel. We’d love to hear your feedback and what you think we should talk about next, who we should have on and what our future debates should be. Send us an email or voice note with your thoughts to podcasts@intelligencesquared.com or Tweet us @intelligence2. And if you’d like to get ad-free access to all Intelligence Squared podcasts, including exclusive bonus content, early access to new episodes and much more, become a supporter of Intelligence Squared today for just £4.99, or the equivalent in your local currency . Just visit intelligencesquared.com/membership to find out more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Autonomy, dignity and compassion. We wish to experience these things in our lives, so why shouldn’t we experience them in our deaths? That’s the argument made by those who support a change in the law to legalise assisted dying in the UK. People who are suffering intractably, they claim, but who are too ill to self-administer life-ending medication should have the right to be helped to end their lives. This would give choice and control to people with a terminal illness, marking a change from the current situation in which they must either take their own lives while they still have the capacity to do so, or continue to live in the knowledge that they are likely to become trapped in a state of intolerable suffering, which they cannot be helped out of. Of course we need to be aware of the so-called ‘slippery slope’ argument, which holds that a change in the law would lead to a situation where it becomes acceptable to kill people who do not wish to die. But with proper safeguards in place, claim its supporters, legalised assisted dying would be the hallmark of a civilised society. Quite the reverse, argue those who would keep the law unchanged. Assisted suicide is not the private act of an individual, they say, but one that involves relatives, friends, healthcare staff and society at large. The ‘right to die’, they insist, imposes a ‘duty to kill’ on someone else, most likely a doctor, imposing restrictions on that person’s autonomy. And then there is the risk of coercion by family members who stand to gain by a relative’s death. All too easily, the ‘right to die’ can become the ‘duty to die’, as people who are sick or disabled feel they should stop being a financial or emotional burden on those around them. Assisted dying would make death not something that we must simply accept when the time comes but a decision that each individual is responsible for – a move that would be deeply damaging to our society. Should assisted dying be viewed as a human right or as a danger to the most vulnerable people in our society?Arguing in favour of the motion were A. C. Grayling, Founder and Principal of New College of the Humanities at Northeastern University, and Professor of Philosophy; and Henry Marsh, a neurosurgeon and bestselling author, who was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer in 2021.Arguing against the motion were Anne Atkins, novelist and broadcaster; and Katherine Sleeman, Laing Galazka Chair in Palliative Care at King's College London and an honorary consultant in Palliative Medicine at King's College Hospital NHS Trust.The debate was chaired by paediatric doctor and TV presenter Guddi Singh. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices