Thought for the Day may lose its sacred status as the BBC debates whether to allow non-religious contributors to the “God slot”.

The three-minute section of the Today programme on Radio 4, which has been derided by one former editor as a “reservoir of pointlessness and boredom”, would be opened up to humanists and secularists under plans being considered by the BBC Trust, the corporation’s governing body.

Mark Damazer, Controller of Radio 4, said yesterday that he regarded the allowing non-religious perspectives as a “finely balanced argument”. Speaking on Feedback, the station’s forum for listeners’ opinions, he said that the Trust was discussing the future of the slot. “They may well suggest . . . that we should take in a wider range of voices,” he said.

The trust will consider whether the benefits of including secular views outweigh the “distinctiveness that the slot gets from being faith-based”. It agreed to review the section after receiving representations from listeners and secular organisations, and will announce its decision in the autumn.

A Church of England spokesman said: “We would strongly resist moves to add non-religious voices to one of the few protected spots in the schedule where religious views on issues of the day can be expressed openly. Thought for the Day is highly valued by people of all faiths and none.”

Christina Rees, a former contributor and a member of the General Synod, said: “I would be open to people who believe in spirituality because they’re expressing a view that is about more than the material and the physical, but I would not want any speaker who would deny a spiritual dimension.”

Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said: “If it’s right to have a slot within the programme for people to have an ethical perspective on issues, then it should be open to all kinds of people.”

Rabbi Lionel Blue, a long-serving contributor, said that he was undecided. “I think it’s there to give some spiritual help to people during the course of the day. How people interpret it is up to them.”