-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
On a recent show of Soul to Soul, Oprah interviewed Diana Nyad, the long distance swimmer who, at age 64, swam from Havana to Key West. During the interview Oprah mentions that Nyad told the producers that she (Nyad) is “not a God person.” Nyad responds: “I’m an atheist.” Oprah responds incredulously: “But you’re in the awe.” Oprah just can’t believe that an atheist could feel awe. While atheists often use reason to understand reality, they have the same emotions exhibited by non-atheists. Atheists just don’t feel the need to affix the “God” label to their feelings.
Nyad saw no contradiction between her atheism and her ability to experience awe, or as she calls it: “weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity.” Oprah was having none of this when she said “I don’t call you an atheist then. I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery, then that is what God is.”
Nyad, maybe sensing Oprah’s uneasiness, offered a concession to the faithful by saying that her “definition of God is humanity and the love of humanity.” That an atheist would make a theist uneasy indicates the theist’s lack of confidence in their worldview. The comfort of theists is not a primary concern for those who advocate reason.
Nyad also went on to explain she’s a “spiritual” person and believes in souls that live on after death. While atheism is not a set of beliefs, it is simply not believing in any god, most atheists don’t accept the other beliefs that accompany God belief. For all the reasons that belief in God unreasonable, belief in the soul is also unreasonable. Nyad’s beliefs freely crisscross the atheist-theist divide.
Oprah’s prejudice against atheists reinforces negative stereotypes. Her viewers will see Oprah’s prejudice as a trait to be imitated and the cancer will spread. For her viewers who already hold anti-atheists biases, those biases have been validated.
Many Christians have characterized Oprah’s beliefs as a form of pantheism, where the universe, or nature, is identical with divinity. While Oprah calls herself a Christian, pantheism is generally not accepted as part of Christian theology. Oprah’s promotion of Eckhart Tolle and his books has done nothing to ingratiate her with Christians.
Overt displays of bigotry against non-believers are tolerated if not encouraged by our society. Studies show that atheists are among the least liked people. This dislike keeps many atheists in the closet. The anonymity of the internet allows atheists to come out on-line while maintaining their disguise at other times. On the internet, people can learn counter-arguments to theological claims and use their own mind to decide which is more compelling.
H/T: Dave Niose, JT Eberhard, Jerry Coyne, Mano Singham, Hemant Mehta, David Edwards.
Sometimes when I bark out a comment into the Dogalogue Machine and then it does not come up on the screen here on Turleyblog I get aggravated at WordPress. Everything in moderation, including moderation. Oprah preaches a bit of a gospel and perhaps that should be reserved for Sunday. If one imbibes in the Lard all week long one will get overweight and have a battle that goes on and on. It is for better to give than receive which is why one should give some thought to Krisco and employ that Monday through Saturday. That being said, we must all realize that faith hath no fury like a religion scorned and that truth is in the eye of the beholder. And in that regard we are all beholden to the mind. Mind over matter is what matters. Folks who wallow in Watergate are doomed to a life of conjecture. When all is said and done this Sunday morning, you can turn on the TV after noon or thereabouts and not have to watch the likes of Billy Graham or Lester Tea Party rant about salvation. Put up with an ad for the Salvation Army and go about the business of football from the NFL. And if you want some religion get out your DVD of Lillies of the Field. Amen.
What have we learned? Numerous violations of the 4th, 5th and 8th Amendments by government officials and their agents acting under the color of authority for one thing.
Of course, if you don’t think you have a duty to either uphold the Constitution or protect civil or human rights in general, that’s your choice.
Mr. Word Press’s press secretary is censoring comments again.
Tony C. 1, October 19, 2013 at 3:00 pm
Dredd: I don’t know what you mean by “machine god.” Your link did not mention it, neither did Lederman’s book.
That said, I think the most plausible origin of life is probably the RNA world hypothesis; it makes sense to me; particularly around thermal ocean vents where all the chemical supplies, compounds, and physical support systems are present with an abundance of excess energy and turbulence to naturally and randomly form some extremely inefficient self-replicator.
No intelligence is required, therefore nothing that would plausibly be described as a God, if “Machine God” is supposed to imply some intelligence devised the non-living chemically reactive machinery that gives rise to life.
========================
I am tongue-in-cheek with “the machine god” statement.
You mentioned “Lederman’s book” which I link to and cite in terms of either a teleological slip or a reference to abiotic intelligence:
(Putting A Face On Machine Mutation – 4). The conversation Oprah had with Diana Nyad, and Diana’s response, seem to me to be teleological comments on the nature of what exists around us.
When the foo shits, wear it.
The Oprah Show is one of those things on television for those who are prone to “believe” rather than question. When there is an audience on a television show there is usually an audience of the faithful. Jeopardy is an example but the Bible totin shows on Sunday are the worst. Oprah is in between Billy Grahm with his audience and Jeopardy. Harpo could teach us more about human behavior. When Harpo nods his head that some fact is true then you better believe. Harpo made believers out of the audience when he let go of the wall and the building came down. He was there for the Berlin Wall but nobody knew it– he was there as a ghost.
When the truth is an usurpation of citizen’s civil and human rights, speak up.
If the government puts people in its employ at risk in the process of destroying everyone’s civil liberties (even in the name of security), that is not only an assumed risk by both employer and employee, it’s the civic duty of everyone who takes civil rights and the Bill of Rights seriously to expose such malfeasance and crimes.
Or you can kick back and watch your rights taken from you and your countrymen from comfortably under the blanket excuse of national security and trust in officials who have manifestly proven themselves untrustworthy by attacking your rights and ignoring the Constitution and the rule of law in the first place.
Or is that where faith comes into play?
DUTY? Please explain what we have learned? Except, we have a tendency for paranoia.
The Book of Mormon is secretive, Jews have a very rigorous religious education. We may do less well on tests created by other religious academics. Especially when the New Testament is a series observations made by others. Memorization is not a religious application.
When truth puts others at risk, shut up!
Regarding the Pew poll–ya gotta read it, not just look at the chart. The chart is for overall knowledge of religion, as well as some non-religious questions, not just Bible knowledge.
The topics: The Bible, Old Testament Questions, Overall Knowledge of the Bible, Elements of Christianity, Elements of Judaism, Elements of Mormonism, World Religions, Atheism and Agnosticism, The Role of Religion in Public Life, Nonreligious Knowledge.
“Mormons outperform Jews as well as atheists and agnostics on questions about the Bible but do not perform as well as the other two groups on questions having to do with world religions such as Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.”
“White evangelicals correctly answer an average of 5.1 out of seven Bible questions, compared with 4.4 among atheists and agnostics and 4.3 among Jews. Mormons answer almost six of the seven Bible questions correctly on average.”
For atheists to score so high overall, but not as well as on Bible questions means that most atheists are more likely to read up on other religions but to not read the Bible as much as some of their Christian counterparts.
Considering the educational level of most agnostics/atheists (college) versus the populations as a whole (only about 30% have a bachelor’s), that would mean that most atheists would tend to be rather academic and bookish, and therefore more well-read than the average joe.
Risking the vortex of doom…
(http://atheistscholar.org/AtheistPsychologies/AtheistDemographics.aspx)
(http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/education/cb12-33.html)
And so what? You aren’t in control of any one else in this world! You’ve stated your opinion, it’s in the ether. Investigate our government and find out what it’s up to? A noble goal, but a preoccupation with “truth” is contextual, and difficult to “know.” This is where faith plays a role. Others are privileged to understand what we can’t know. You look for sources of truth for your experience and then do the most difficult thing, trust!
Patricia,
I don’t have much respect for people who espouse preemptive wars and torture. I do respect those who investigate what our government is up to and inform us of what’s going on and when we’re being lied to.
You can’t prove anything with religion.
and now begins the battle of the atheists vs the believers.. did i not say 6 months ago this was going to happen right before the holidays especially before the new year comes in
Nazism was the vibrant religion of some for a time. Today, as most “religions,” it has found its place in the realm of entertainment or subterfuge.
Oro said, “I’m not asking anyone to prove religion has no value, I’m wondering if it has any [continuing] value.”
That is indeed the question, but I would add “organized” as a qualifier for it often seems that it is the dogma perpetrated by organizations – often geared at nothing more than perpetuating the power base of said organization and/or its sitting leadership – is where most problems arise. The purpose of all organizations is relative degrees of centralized control over something. When a spiritual life is left to the individual as some practices like Gnosticism and Buddhism encourage, religion rarely causes problems unless a particular person’s belief veers into madness, but something like the Inquisition or a jihad requires an organization and the institutional will to eliminate non-doctrinal thought and practice from “nonconforming” individuals. To the end of protecting such matters of conscience in the individual, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains some very appropriate language in Article 18. “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” Any faith or lack thereof a person might have is their choice. Using force to change or eliminate that choice has historically proven to cause social discord and is inherently unethical. As Jefferson said in Notes on the State of Virginia:
It is rather ironic that it is Atheists who seem to know more about what is in the bible than your average Christian……
I am just offended that Oprah didn’t mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his Noodley Goodness……
.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/ this talks about about who knew more about the teachings of the bible
Religion and how to explain the unexplainable.
I believe it would be safe to say that changes and modifications within and between religions has NOT come about because of improvements in communications with the gods.
Let us remember when discussing the reality of a religious experience that everything real must be processed, one way or another, through the brain. Neuroscientific analysis may yet prove that a god is as real as a table.
Elaine,
That is one heck of an obit!
Mike,
Christopher Hitchens and the protocol for public figure deaths
Etiquette-based prohibitions on speaking ill of the dead should apply to private individuals, not public figures
BY GLENN GREENWALD
12/17/11
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/christohper_hitchens_and_the_protocol_for_public_figure_deaths/singleton/
Excerpt:
Hitchens was obviously more urbane and well-written than the average neocon faux-warrior, but he was also often more vindictive and barbaric about his war cheerleading. One of the only writers with the courage to provide the full picture of Hitchens upon his death was Gawker‘s John Cook, who — in an extremely well-written and poignant obituary – detailed Hitchens’ vehement, unapologetic passion for the attack on Iraq and his dismissive indifference to the mass human suffering it caused, accompanied by petty contempt for those who objected (he denounced the Dixie Chicks as being “sluts” and “fucking fat slags” for the crime of mildly disparaging the Commander-in-Chief). As Cook put it: “it must not be forgotten in mourning him that he got the single most consequential decision in his life horrifically, petulantly wrong”; indeed: “People make mistakes. What’s horrible about Hitchens’ ardor for the invasion of Iraq is that he clung to it long after it became clear that a grotesque error had been made.”…
There’s one other aspect to the adulation of Hitchens that’s quite revealing. There seems to be this sense that his excellent facility with prose excuses his sins. Part of that is the by-product of America’s refusal to come to terms with just how heinous and destructive was the attack on Iraq. That act of aggression is still viewed as a mere run-of-the-mill “mistake” — hey, we all make them, so we shouldn’t hold it against Hitch – rather than what it is: the generation’s worst political crime, one for which he remained fully unrepentant and even proud. But what these paeans to Hitchens reflect even more so is the warped values of our political and media culture: once someone is sufficiently embedded within that circle, they are intrinsically worthy of admiration and respect, no matter what it is that they actually do. As Aaron Bady put it to me by email yesterday:
“I go back to something Judith Butler’s been saying for years; some lives are grievable and some are not. And in that context, publicly mourning someone like Hitchens in the way we are supposed to do — holding him up as someone who was “one of us,” even if we disagree with him — is also a way of quietly reinforcing the “we” that never seems to extend to the un-grievable Arab casualties of Hitch’s favorite wars. It’s also a “we” that has everything to do with being clever and literate and British (and nothing to do with a human universalism that stretches across the usual “us” and “them” categories). And when it is impolitic to mention that he was politically atrocious (in exactly the way of Kissinger, if not to the extent), we enshrine the same standard of human value as when the deaths of Iraqi children from cluster bombs are rendered politically meaningless by our lack of attention.”
That’s precisely true. The blood on his hands — and on the hands of those who played an even greater, more direct role in all of this totally unjustified killing of innocents — is supposed to be ignored because he was an accomplished member in good standing of our media and political class. It’s a way the political and media class protects and celebrates itself: our elite members are to be heralded and their victims forgotten. One is, of course, free to believe that. But what should not be tolerated are prohibitions on these types of discussions when highly misleading elegies are being publicly implanted, all in order to consecrate someone’s reputation for noble greatness even when their acts are squarely at odds with that effort.
Elaine, Glenn Greenwald has done more harm in this world than Hitchens. I wish he was here to answer for himself. This line of ad hominem blather is the easiest for me to disregard on its face! It’s boring because I have no “faith” in another’s subjective opinion without “reason.” I can only speak for myself…
“That’s precisely true. The blood on his hands — and on the hands of those who played an even greater, more direct role in all of this totally unjustified killing of innocents — is supposed to be ignored because he was an accomplished member in good standing of our media and political class. It’s a way the political and media class protects and celebrates itself: our elite members are to be heralded and their victims forgotten.”
Elaine,
Good link as usual and that quote above sums up my feeling. Hitchen’s manner, accent and articulation was reminiscent of another scoundrel, William F. Buckley, who’s death was mourned by the media in the same fashion as I wrote about him here:
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/04/william_f__buckley_jr__1985/#more-42375
Writers and media figures who rise to prominence have consequences to their musings. In terms of consequences Hitchens was a minor league Buckley, except his British accent was authentic. Both were men in love with their own voice and heedless of the consequences of their pontification. Curiously, Buckley’s thinking was informed by a somewhat orthodox Roman Catholocism and of Hitchen’s was an atheist. Nevertheless, both were dogmatic in their various pronouncements evincing a positive certainty that brooked no doubt and cast aspersions on their critics. In truth Buckley was a “Professional Catholic” and Hitchen’s was a “Professional Atheist.” Tony C., who is an atheist celebrity on our pages, advances his beliefs without the smug assertiveness of “Hitch” and with a good deal more logic.