'There might be a God', says Sir David Attenborough

DoctorE · #1 by **DoctorE** » Jan 29, 2012 6:56 pm

Sir David Attenborough does not believe that an understanding of evolution is incompatible with faith in God, he will tell Radio 4 listeners on Sunday.

Attenborough, who was invited back to Desert Island Discs to mark the 70th anniversary of the radio programme, explains that, while he is still agnostic, he does not rule out the possibility of the existence of a deity.

"I don't think an understanding and an acceptance of the 4 billion-year-long history of life is any way inconsistent with a belief in a supreme being," the 85-year-old broadcaster and writer will tell presenter Kirsty Young. "And I am not so confident as to say that I am an atheist."

Continues: http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/ ... land-discs

Scar · #2 by **Scar** » Jan 29, 2012 7:05 pm

Sure, it isn't incompatible with some sort of losely defined creator deity thingy. I don't know anyone who says it is either. What's his point exactly?

Mazille · #3 by **Mazille** » Jan 29, 2012 7:09 pm

Scar wrote:Sure, it isn't incompatible with some sort of losely defined creator deity thingy. I don't know anyone who says it is either. What's his point exactly?

1. Extending a hand to liberal theists.
2. Not being comfortable with the term atheist, when what he argues for is basically weak atheism.
:dunno:

He's allowed to do that. He's fucking Sir fucking Attenborough.

Teuton · #4 by **Teuton** » Jan 29, 2012 7:15 pm

"[Attenborough] does not rule out the possibility of the existence of a deity."

How often does one have to stress the point that positive atheism is not the view that deities can't exist but the view that deities don't exist (no matter whether or not the actual nonexistence of gods is due to their impossible existence)?!

a. Strong Positive Atheism: There are possible worlds containing deities, but those are different from the actual world, which doesn't contain any.

b. Very Strong Positive Atheism: There are no possible worlds containing deities, including that possible world which is the actual world.

Agrippina · #5 by **Agrippina** » Jan 29, 2012 7:30 pm

Or maybe he's just hedging his bets in case he dies and finds himself having to deal with Peter at the Pearly Gates.

iam43 · #6 by **iam43** » Jan 29, 2012 8:17 pm

Agrippina wrote:Or maybe he's just hedging his bets in case he dies and finds himself having to deal with Peter at the Pearly Gates.

I doubt it. With Sir David Attenborough's record St. Peter should be the one who is nervous.

Paul G · #7 by **Paul G** » Jan 29, 2012 10:55 pm

Scar wrote:Sure, it isn't incompatible with some sort of losely defined creator deity thingy. I don't know anyone who says it is either. What's his point exactly?

He isn't making a point so much as explaining what his opinion is. I'm sure many have him down as an atheist.

quisquose · #8 by **quisquose** » Jan 29, 2012 11:08 pm

He's still an atheist by any definition that I understand.

He's also agnostic, but then so are most people, again by any definition that I understand.

I'm an agnostic atheist, just like Sir David.

Ironclad · #9 by **Ironclad** » Jan 29, 2012 11:17 pm

When asked if he believed in god, David Battenburg replied, when I see parasitic worms eating the eyes of the poorest children in the poorest of lands, one is inclined to doubt.
Something like that.

I think lines like his, above, from a person who declares as agnostic-atheist, leaves more food for thought than may perhaps the Dawk approach might, to a general public.

HomerJay · **#10** by **HomerJay** » Jan 29, 2012 11:25 pm

DoctorE wrote:
"And I am not so confident as to say that I am an atheist."

He's just a bit old fashioned but then he is 85.

Teuton · **#11** by **Teuton** » Jan 29, 2012 11:31 pm

Ironclad wrote:When asked if he believed in god, David Battenburg replied, when I see parasitic worms eating the eyes of the poorest children in the poorest of lands, one is inclined to doubt.
Something like that.

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficient and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars."

(Darwin, Charles. "The Origin of Species—Reviews and Criticisms—Adhesions and Attacks: 1860." In Selected Letters on Evolution and Origin of Species: With an Autobiographical Chapter, edited by Francis Darwin, 236-258. 1892 [different title]. Reprint, Mineola, NY: Dover, 1958. p. 249)

Mick · **#12** by **Mick** » Jan 30, 2012 12:24 am

Atheism is pretty stupid either way, guys.

Calilasseia · **#13** by **Calilasseia** » Jan 30, 2012 12:49 am

And believing in an imaginary magic man isn't? Please, do explain why.

DoctorE · **#14** by **DoctorE** » Jan 30, 2012 8:56 am

He is getting old... Maybe even I will say something like this, when I am really really old

Agrippina · **#15** by **Agrippina** » Jan 30, 2012 9:02 am

Actually what you, or I, or anyone believes about the afterlife or about the magical man in the sky doesn't matter, in the end we all just die. Imagine going to sleep and never waking up. You're not aware of anything when you're sleeping, that's what I imagine death to be, only you don't wake up, even if someone screams in your ear or bites a big chunk out of your throat, or chucks you in a flaming oven, nothing, nada, it's just a great big nothing, like before you were born. Actually worse, because before you were born there was a world and it was all in black and white. When you're dead there's no more world, not even a black and white one, for you. My personal feeling. So I don't care if people want to believe they're going to go off to a bright light, meet Jesus and all their family who died before them and it's all going to be a big happy party forever and ever among flowers and butterflies and pretty pink rainbows. Whatever, believe it if it makes you accept the fact that we're all going to bloody cop it someday.

Paul · **#16** by **Paul** » Jan 30, 2012 9:35 am

Ironclad wrote:When asked if he believed in god, David Battenburg replied, when I see parasitic worms eating the eyes of the poorest children in the poorest of lands, one is inclined to doubt.
Something like that.

According to wikiqoute it's from the BBC documentary Life on Air (2002)

I often get letters, quite frequently, from people who say how they like the programmes a lot, but I never give credit to the almighty power that created nature. To which I reply and say, "Well, it's funny that the people, when they say that this is evidence of the Almighty, always quote beautiful things. They always quote orchids and hummingbirds and butterflies and roses." But I always have to think too of a little boy sitting on the banks of a river in west Africa who has a worm boring through his eyeball, turning him blind before he's five years old. And I reply and say, "Well, presumably the God you speak about created the worm as well," and now, I find that baffling to credit a merciful God with that action. And therefore it seems to me safer to show things that I know to be truth, truthful and factual, and allow people to make up their own minds about the moralities of this thing, or indeed the theology of this thing.

Fallible · **#17** by **Fallible** » Jan 30, 2012 9:53 am

Mick wrote:Atheism is pretty stupid either way, guys.

That's just sad.

rainbow · **#18** by **rainbow** » Jan 30, 2012 10:07 am

Mick wrote:Atheism is pretty stupid either way, guys.

You are quite wrong.

Atheism lacks intelligence.

quisquose · **#19** by **quisquose** » Jan 30, 2012 10:08 am

From the Celebrity Atheists website:

http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/David_Attenborough

From a BBC documentary:
BBC: The question of God arises for anyone who studies the natural world, as you have. Was it a religious upbringing?
Attenborough: Not at all, No.
BBC: Have you, at any time, had any religious faith?
Attenborough: No
I find it far more awesome, wonderful, that creation; our appearance in the world; should be the culmination, or at least one of the latest products of 3,000 Million years of organic evolution, than a kind of country trick, taking a rib out of a man's side in a trance. [2]
--
"It never really occurred to me to believe in God." [3]
--
During an appearance on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross show:
Ross: Do you, yourself, do you, are you are religious person? Do you believe in God?
Attenborough: Well, put it this way. I do not think that knowing that life has developed from its simplest forms over 3,000 million years, as awesome a story as you can possibly imagine. I don't think that necessarily means that you can't believe in God?
Ross: That's a kind of agnostic view of God.
Attenborough: I mean, my view is that I don't know one way or another. But, I don't think that evolution is against a belief in God.

He was also very critical of the Biblical account of life in the programme he presented on population growth not so long ago.

I have done some limited study of the evolution of the word atheist.

If you pick up an old dictionary (>100 years) you are likely to find a single line definition, "one who lacks of belief in God" or "one who disbelieves in God". Simples. At a time when almost everybody would say they believed there was a God, this definition was all that was required.

It's only in the 1900's that the second line was added, "belief that there is no God".

On my last trip to the USA I found a "modern" dictionary with a third line, that simply said "evil".

As the word atheist has evolved to define somebody who is more definite in their disbelief, the word agnostic has evolved to mean undecided. I suspect that this has been driven by what theists want the words to mean.

I prefer the original definition because it more closely reflects my own position, and every person I know that identifies themselves as an atheist for that matter. David Attenborough fits the original definition of atheist, "one who lacks belief", perfectly. Like me, he is an agnostic atheist.

Too many people think that the positions of agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive, they are not. Too many people refuse to identify themselves as atheist because they think it is too definite, it is not. I suspect that David Attenborough is aware of his popularity and would not want to damage it by identify himself as the atheist that he is. This is what we need to change imho.

Paul · **#20** by **Paul** » Jan 30, 2012 10:24 am

rainbow wrote:
Mick wrote:Atheism is pretty stupid either way, guys.

You are quite wrong.

Atheism lacks intelligence.

The lack of belief in something lacks something else?

At least Mick's comment, even though it was crass and inane, made grammatical sense.