-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.
We live in a modest house. We have friends who live in houses on lakes and golf courses. Our friends run the gamut of residence choices. We’re all comfortable w/ our choices because everyone has different priorities. There’s nothing wrong w/ living on a golf course. We won’t think you’re a Republican.
If there is a God, may She damn the WordPress filter
Gene wrote: “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.”
I have been fortunate to work with the primal people and societies in the Southwest USA — their religion is not far removed from that first formed by a subsistence people at the dawn of the Neolithic. I find in it many elements of Buddhism without the concept of nirvana or vestigial reincarnation or karma. It also resembles Plato’s forms, especially the katsinas.
The most striking dissimilarity is any need for enlightenment or that time is either linear or cyclical. Like Oriental religions there are no dualities, but dissimilarly there is no struggle to realize such — it’s simply a given that the world is a whole and harmonious and each person and tribe has duties which need to be performed to help maintain that harmony — but so do all other animals, and the plants, and the rocks and mountains, water, fire. The People are not in control and it would be dis-harmonious to seek such control.
I believe those type of religions — the primal ones — still have much to offer mankind. It embodies ancient wisdom that that has withstood the test of evolutionary time.
Oh, yeah, The People know that their religion is but mythical story but there is truth in the story. The problem with modern religion is that folks believe the myth is true and therefore are unaware of the myth’s truths
They mythbelieve and the truth is not in them.
“Oh, yeah, The People know that their religion is but mythical story but there is truth in the story. The problem with modern religion is that folks believe the myth is true and therefore are unaware of the myth’s truths”
Oro Lee,
That is a very telling point in this discussion. My contention is that the progenitors of Judaism and Christianity understood that the creation stories and the history were also metaphors. The whole concept of “primitive” peoples is a myth told by those that consider themselves above them intellectually and thus morally superior. The writers of the Torah, for instance, were dealing in metaphors about life. Genesis is almost completely metaphorical and it was understood as such in the time of its writing. What happens with those who would express a philosophy for life to show humans how better to live among themselves, is that invariably those that follow later will morph the message into a tool for cowing the people and accruing power. In the Torah for instance Jews now refer to the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Joseph. The actual stories regarding the men show them to be individually quite flawed and those flaws were there in my opinion to show the frailty of being human. Even the Jewish Female Matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca and Leah, were shown to be less than perfect in their behavior and that to told a story. That later generations made them into objects of veneration is more a testament to religious leaders will to power, than to the intrinsic nature of the moral tales.
I think this is what happened to Jesus as well. There is much of his wisdom in the Gospels, but the religion came from Paul’s take on it, rather than Jesus teachings. Jesus in the Gospels seemed to be trying to improve the lot of humanity by making people think through parables. Paul totally downplayed Jesus parables for living, in order to insert a narrative that was quite common at the time, that of the dying and resurrected God. The People, native Americans are not at all “primitive intellectually, or culturally. Just as the Aborigines of Australia are intellectually and socially sophisticated.
Due to the need to dominate by certain Western and Eastern cultures, part of the process of justifying their brutality was to make these native people “simple” and “primitive” as part of the de-humanization process that then gave them the “moral rectitude” to brutalize them.
What bothered me about Hitchen’s and Dawkins’ biblical “exegesis” was that it was superficial in understanding the materials dealt with. For the most part they got it right, but their analysis was nastily simplistic. I understand why they chose to go in that direction, given the depredations that organized religion has caused mankind, but their anger towards it was/is too personal to be considered scholarly. I too am angered by organized religion, but that anger is tempered by an understanding of the underlying nature of what is going on. In the end with life ALL of us struggle with our own mortality. Many seek balm for the discomfiting fear of death within themselves. They look for some escape clause from the inescapable. If they find it in religion more power to them, but when has often been the case in history, they try to impose their beliefs and their canon upon others forcefully, count me out.
It is curious that any form of discussion about atheism, particularly by someone who doesn’t believe the same thing an atheist believes, is simply a bias against atheism. This is very similar to criticism about Mr. Obama always being labeled racism. The truth is, not everyone believes the same way atheists believe, and discussion about atheism is not a “bias” or prejudice. It’s also humorous to read articles on JT that are always talking about how bad the atheists have it (cue sad violin music in background).
“While atheists often use reason to understand reality, they have the same emotions exhibited by non-atheists.”
This statement is simply not true. One of the facets of atheism is being unreasonable and not allowing any discussion. Take agnosticism for example, an agnostic at least admits he/she “doesn’t know” if God exists or not. That leaves room for discussion, and that discussion almost never ends up in some fight or strawman argument. This is not the case with atheism. An atheist believes God doesn’t exist. Period. End of discussion. That leaves no room for any kind of debate (lest you be biased against atheism). This is not being reasonable. This is being unreasonable. An inevitably a discussion about God with an atheist will end up with the atheist hiding behind several strawman arguments or taking refuge in default arguments such as the classic “Santa Syndrome” (usually the atheist unwittingly falls into this trap).
“Atheists just don’t feel the need to affix the “God” label to their feelings.”
Continuing the unreasonable character of atheism, since atheists believe God doesn’t exist, they will need to concoct things to explain existence if God doesn’t exist. Such as using illogical believes such as evolutionism/neodarwinism.
No, atheism isn’t reasonable, and isn’t logical. And a criticism of atheism does not make one biased. Christians wear criticism of Christianity as a badge of honor, because it is written that the world will persecute Christians. If you aren’t being criticized that’s when one should worry. Any dead fish can float downstream. And of course, what good is salt that has lost its flavor. So a Christian is used to criticism. An atheist should perhaps take advice from one of their own that once said that which doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger. So take your lumps like the rest of us and don’t cry about it.
Balderdash, first you have to know what God is for yourself! But, please don’t tell me what God is. You don’t have the capacity! Only I know what I know! And I could give two hoots about what you think you know!
Dredd, Read your original accusation about Hitchens vis a vis the NSA. Then read the lawsuit and pieces Hitchens wrote about spying and the NSA. For Chrissake, this is nuts. You were wrong, jumping around and yelling about it just makes it worse. Hitchens refused to be in anyone’s little box. You despise him for not being against the war in Iraq. Duly noted. You’re standing in a long line, now move to the rear of the line for doubling down on being wrong about Hitch and the NSA.
I thought a Hitchens cult was that small metal ring and gasket assembly on the carburetor of a 1963 Jaguar XKE.
P Smith 1, October 19, 2013 at 11:06 pm
… atheism means not having belief in fictitious cults.
=======================
Well, does that presuppose that there are fictitious cults as well as non-fictitious cults?
Or that cults do not exist because they are fictitious?
cult: an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers …
How about the Hitchens cult?
Is it fictitious or non-fictitious?
He doesn’t always play pool, but when he does, it’s pocket.
Some of his best friends are everyone he needs to quote.
nick spinelli 1, October 20, 2013 at 9:58 am
Sanctimonious elitists don’t know how to bust balls. You’re embarrassing yourselves. Did each member of the Chessman carry a chess piece w/ them for identification?
=======================
Nick, the proper term is “burst balls.”
Don’t be uncouth.
Who are the “Chessman”?
nick spinelli 1, October 20, 2013 at 10:07 am
Dredd, You were wrong. Don’t belabor it, and don’t double down on being wrong like you accuse Hitch of doing. Move on.
=================
Wrong about what?
That Hitchens is ok with wrongful mass murder based on a lie, but not ok with W spying on him? Poor baby.
If you buy that you won’t be able to explain yourself and you are the one who needs to move on.
I agree that it is wrong for W to order the military NSA to spy on Hitchens, but it does not stop there, it is wrong for them to spy on the paper wolves here too.
And wrong for them to spy on you.
Dredd, You were wrong. Don’t belabor it, and don’t double down on being wrong like you accuse Hitch of doing. Move on.
Why were you so touchy about living on a golf course? I just used a northerner stereotype moving to Florida, but your reaction was visceral, accusing me of something I didn’t do and threatening me. You did mention you didn’t live on the ocean. Is it the fact living on a golf course doesn’t fit your image? Is it you do fit the northern stereotype moving to Florida. “I can’t afford to golf” came flying outta your mouth. You reveal an awful lot about yourself.
Just “bursting balls” I guess. 🙂
Cuba imports cigars from him.
All Maine Lobsters come from his Traps in Nova Scotia.
<b<nick spinelli 1, October 20, 2013 at 9:43 am
I don’t do links. Just Google it. He was a client of the ACLU.
=====================
I found it: ACLU v. NSA, 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007), cert. denied.
It was dismissed for lack of standing.
Thus, I see a contradiction in his logic:
He is like Dawkins in this logical contradiction.
Sanctimonious elitists don’t know how to bust balls. You’re embarrassing yourselves. Did each member of the Chessman carry a chess piece w/ them for identification?
What Oprah gets wrong about atheism
Opinion by Chris Stedman, special to CNN
10/16/13
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/16/what-oprah-gets-wrong-about-atheism/comment-page-23/
Excerpt:
The exchange between Winfrey and Nyad reminds me of a conversation I once had with a Catholic scholar.
The professor once asked me: “When I talk about God, I mean love and justice and reconciliation, not a man in the sky. You talk about love and justice and reconciliation. Why can’t you just call that God?”
I replied: “Why must you call that God? Why not just call it what it is: love and justice and reconciliation?”
Though we started off with this disagreement, we came to better understand one another’s points of view through patient, honest dialogue.
Conversations like that are greatly needed today, as atheists are broadly misunderstood.
When I visit college and university campuses around the United States, I frequently ask students what words are commonly associated with atheists. Their responses nearly always include words like “negative,” “selfish,” “nihilistic” and “closed-minded.”
When I ask how many of them actually have a relationship with an atheist, few raise their hands.
Relationships can be transformative. The Pew Research Center found that among the 14% of Americans who changed their mind from opposing same-sex marriage to supporting it in the last decade, the top reason given was having “friends, family, acquaintances who are gay/lesbian.”
Knowing someone of a different identity can increase understanding. This has been true for me as a queer person and as an atheist. I have met people who initially think I can’t actually be an atheist when they learn that I experience awe and am committed to service and social justice.
But when I explain that atheism is central to my worldview — that I am in awe of the natural world and that I believe it is up to human beings, instead of a divine force, to strive to address our problems — they often better understand my views, even if we don’t agree.
While theists can learn by listening to atheists more, atheists themselves can foster greater understanding by not just emphasizing the “no” of atheism — our disagreement over the existence of any gods — but also the “yes” of atheism and secular humanism, which recognizes the amazing potential within human beings.
If he were to mail a letter without postage, it would still get there.
On the golf course he doesn’t use a club, the ball just goes to the hole he wants it to. Therefore in reality he doesn’t do links. He doesn’t often drink, but when he does he drinks Kool-Aid.
I don’t do links. Just Google it. He was a client of the ACLU.
Dogs,
It’s the spam filter misbehaving again.
There is a new blog, part of the Law Prof Blog, called Civil Rights blog. I recommend it. It too Brutu, has WordPress, but the topics are great.
I should have just skipped over this Harpo/Oprah apCray. Oprah is just big media and has acquired media magnate status but that don’t mean her itShay don’t stink in the dogpac when she gets a moaning about atheists or however ya spull the word about the believers in commons sense. If you want to be a Theist then believe in one Dog, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. But don’t cotton to no WordPress censorship. I am off planet for awhile, the censorship done ragged me off.