The Attenborough Mystery (The atheist delusion)
A STRANGE STORY - Saturday: George reports hearing a radio interview in which David Attenborough says he is an agnostic. George doesn't believe him and thinks he is an atheist. DHW believes him. - Sunday: The Sunday Times publishes an interview in which David Attenborough says he is a lifelong atheist. - Sunday night: www.AgnosticWeb.com commissions ten top scientists to investigate the phenomenon. Here are their ten conclusions: - 1) George has psychic powers. 2) George had prior knowledge. 3) Attenborough lied to the radio interviewer. 4) Attenborough lied to The Sunday Times. 5) Attenborough doesn't know the difference between agnosticism and atheism. 6) You can't trust the radio. 7) You can't trust The Sunday Times. 8) You can't trust George. 9) My extensive research into epistemology, philology, philosophy, psychology, phrenology, semantics, and octogenarian naturalists has revealed that no concept can be rejected without prior knowledge of that concept. I have interviewed thousands of newborn babes, not one of whom was able to articulate a knowledge of the concept of God, let alone a rejection of that concept. I have extended my research into other fields, such as Socialism, Conservatism, support of football clubs, admiration of, devotion to, interest in etc., and my conclusion ... which I hope to publish shortly ... is that most claims to lifelong beliefs and activities are untenable. (Please nominate me for the Nobel Prize.) 10) Yawn.
The Attenborough Mystery
by David Turell 
, Monday, February 02, 2009, 17:30 (5771 days ago) @ dhw
A STRANGE STORY > Saturday: George reports hearing a radio interview in which David Attenborough says he is an agnostic. > George doesn't believe him and thinks he is an atheist. DHW believes him. > Sunday: The Sunday Times publishes an interview in which David Attenborough says he is a lifelong atheist. >., and my conclusion ... which I hope to publish shortly ... is that most claims to lifelong beliefs and activities are untenable. (Please nominate me for the Nobel Prize.) - Two comments: First to solve the problem. Go to Wikipedia which always has the truth as liberals see it. Attenborough is agnotic, it claims. Secondly your comment about lifelong beliefs should be etched in stone, because folks who stick to those beliefs have their minds encased in cement!!! They have quit reading and thinking, because those early beliefs make them feel so comfortable, why should they change? I will nominate you for the Nobel.
The Attenborough Mystery
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Tuesday, February 03, 2009, 11:02 (5771 days ago) @ dhw
I couldn't find any statement on the Sunday Times website in which David Attenborough said explicitly that he was an atheist. Are you sure you read it in the printed version, or is it just your interpretation of his, possibly somewhat ambiguous, statements? Anyway "never believe what you read in the newspapers" is a good rule. Wikipedia, which DT cites, can usually be relied on, since the contributions of its subscribers are subject to natural selection. - I've been busy trying to get a Hastings Humanists group started, by advertising an inaugural meeting to be held on Darwin Day, 12 February. I've set up a blog for the purpose: - http://hastingshumanists.blogspot.com/ - So I shall be calling myself a humanist in preference from now on. Terms such as agnostic and atheist in any case are just fighting an old outdated battle, like those over phlogiston or caloric or aether, that have no importance for modern everyday life.
--
GPJ
The Attenborough Mystery
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, February 03, 2009, 19:05 (5770 days ago) @ George Jelliss
By coincidence there is an interview with Ian McEwan the novelist that has just appeared on Richard Dawkins' site, in which very early on he mentions phlogiston in the same way that I did in my previous post above. - http://richarddawkins.net/article,3573,Uncut-Interview-with-Ian-McEwan---Root-of-All-Ev... - He also has similar views to me about the negativity of the word "atheist", though I'm quite happy to use it, probably because I'm not so sensitive about upsetting theists. I agree with most of what he says in this quite long interview, though not with the view that we are all naturally empathic, nor that humans have an inbuilt need for religion. - For instance, I couldn't forbear to grin when I saw a drunk fall over in the snow yesterday. Though it could easily have been me, falling over that is, not drunk. And had I been at a lunch with the Archbishop of Canterbury I wouldn't have talked poetry with him!
--
GPJ
The Attenborough Mystery
George couldn't find the Attenborough interview on the Sunday Times website. - It was in the News Review section of the paper itself as one of the Interviews of the Week, under the headline "It's beautiful, but it's not God's work". The caption to the photograph of Attenborough reads: "Attenborough has been a lifelong atheist", and the article repeats this, though not in his own words: "On the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth Attenborough has decided to make his views more widely known. A lifelong atheist, he thinks...." (it then quotes him on what is being taught in schools.) - Since he is such a popular and respected communicator, I guess it does matter what he is (or says he is). He gave a strong hint in Darwin and the Tree of Life, with a sharp dig at design, but said nothing explicit. - Thank you for recommending the McEwan interview. I've tried twice to watch it, but it keeps stopping in the middle of every sentence, so I...stopped...watching. But I'm sure the world's supply of sadists, murderers, rapists, child abusers etc. and their victims would agree with him that we are all naturally empathic, just as people who don't believe in God obviously have an inbuilt need for religion. It's surprising how many people insist on fighting against their own nature! - Congratulations on your enterprise in setting up a Humanist group in Hastings. Your first topic, "Evolution Implies Atheism", is a good one to start off with. I'm sure you'll remind everyone that Darwin was an agnostic. Your statement that "terms such as agnostic and atheist in any case are just fighting an old outdated battle" is nice and provocative too. I don't suppose Hastings will mind staging another old battle.
The Attenborough Mystery
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, February 05, 2009, 19:08 (5768 days ago) @ dhw
Here's the text of another interview with David Attenborough, by Laurie Taylor in New Humanist. - http://newhumanist.org.uk/1673 - Quote: Yet he had never openly declared himself to be an atheist. "That's right. I'm an agnostic. In the strict sense that I don't know. And I don't know a lot. And I certainly don't know about the existence of a supreme being or about the existence of an afterlife. The absence of evidence does not mean that there is a god. The absence of evidence means two things. It means that we don't know but it also means scientifically that it would be interesting to find out." There are those who accuse agnostics of hedging their bets. But this would quite unfair to Attenborough. His agnosticism is not a way of saying that there might be a god; it is rather a statement about the necessary humility and open-mindedness of the scientific attitude. It is a prescription for action rather than a refusal to enter the argument. - DHW has sent me a photocopy of the article in the Sunday Times, which is in fact a verson of an interview originally in Radio Times. The caption on the photo, "Attenborough has been a lifelong atheist", has to be an editorial addition.
--
GPJ
The Attenborough Mystery
by David Turell , Thursday, February 05, 2009, 19:47 (5768 days ago) @ George Jelliss
His agnosticism is not a way of saying that there might be a god; it is rather a statement about the necessary humility and open-mindedness of the scientific attitude. It is a prescription for action rather than a refusal to enter the argument. - I realize that I have made a choice, but Attenborough's attitude as analyzed above by George is exactly the way I feel about continuing to review forthcoming scientific discoveries, and being willing to alter one's viewpoint as the evidence demands. So far I have not changed my mind but I know I can if the evidence is compelling enough. No new science must be viewed by a preconceived prism of past views, finding excuses to ignore a discovery that is disturbing to them.