Oprah: You Can’t Be an Atheist If You ‘Believe in the Awe and Wonder’ of the World

[pokerfan]

Diana Nyad is a truly remarkable woman. She made four unsuccessful attempts to swim from Cuba to Florida, but persevered and actually accomplished her goal on the fifth try. Now Nyad just happens to be an atheist, and said so to Oprah Winfrey in an interview that aired on Sunday. And Nyad was very open and honest about her worldview and how she’s able to appreciate the awe and the majesty of the earth despite her atheism.

DIANA NYAD: I can stand at the beach’s edge with the most devout Christian, Jew, Buddhist, go on down the line, and weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity, all the billions of people who lived before us, who have loved and hurt and suffered. To me, my definition of God is humanity and is the love of humanity.

OPRAH: Well, 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.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oprah-you-cant-be-an-atheist-if-you-believe-in-the-awe-and-wonder-of-the-world/

[hrmjustin]

1. She may not have meant offense but what she said was very offensive.

My parents are non-believers and they can experience the wonder of all of creation without believing in God.

She probably did not mean to insult people but it was very insulting to many people.

[cui bono]

2. I agree. It was also very ignorant. n/t

[arcane1]

5. Well-said. Ignorant people can be offensive without even realizing it.

They can only see through their limited prism.

[CoffeeCat]

7. Absolutely...I experience more awe and wonder as an atheist...

To understand that some magical being didn't create all of this in seven days--but that everything
evolved very slowly over billions of years--makes my jaw drop. Knowing that the precise conditions
helped us to evolve and progress as we have--is mind blowing.

And when you realize that this is IT--there is no magical fairyland in the sky that's the next stop--it leaves
you humbled, in total awe of how special are time here is and on fire to live life to its fullest.

I often think that if people realized that this may be it--then maybe they would be kinder, more appreciative
and more sane. Living your life, believing that this is just a ho-hum bus stop on the way to Nirvana shortchanges
all of the true awe and wonder that is here right now.

[pokerfan]

13. Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide) said it best...

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

16. So true, and I actually love the fantasy of fairies at the bottom of the garden, but

I don't actually believe in them!

[Eleanors38]

11. Maybe she was thinking "shock and awe."

[TygrBright]

14. Thank you for confirming that. It was my first reaction.

It sounded to me like "Well, I'm sure you're not REALLY the bad thing, you're more like what I think is the GOOD thing!"

::sigh::

Once again, I apologize on behalf of the believer community. We're not all like that. Many of us do try. Some of us are better at it than others.

I'll keep trying.

wearily,
Bright

[hrmjustin]

15. Yeah it seems like she had no idea how condescending she was.

It was not one of her better moments.

[Lil Missy]

3. I thought Oprah was smarter than that. What a dumb thing to say. n/t

[Skittles]

4. very sanctimonious

[tularetom]

6. Isn't it possible to believe that God created all the beauty of the earth without thinking

that he is a vengeful insecure dickhead who demands that we kiss his ass or he'll throw us into the fire for all eternity?

Far as I'm concerned any god who could conceive and execute such a creation would be no more concerned our lives than with the lives of cockroaches. We're just a piddly ass part of the grand design.

[abelenkpe]

8. I believe in the awe and wonder of the world

But am an atheist. It is possible.

[pokerfan]

32. Richard Feynman on Beauty....

Can a scientist appreciate the beauty of a flower in the same way as a non-scientist?

Richard Feynman believed that the more science tells us about the world we live in, the more beautiful it becomes. In this thought-provoking clip taken from The Feynman Series, the late American physicist discusses how science can help us see beyond aesthetics.

[rickford66]

9. Actions of those who believe in God

Those who believe in God, do the right thing because they either seek the reward of Heaven or fear the punishment of Hell. Atheists do the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

[cbayer]

22. Not true and way too broad a brush.

[rickford66]

25. Hey, it's my brush.

What does religion offer after death except rewards or punishment?

[cbayer]

26. It's your brush and it's way too broad, imo.

As another article posted this morning points out, most christians are humanists who believe in god.

There is nothing to support the statement that all religious people are driven to do good because they expect reward and want to avoid punishment.

If one is doing good, then let's give them credit. It seems unnecessary to take the position that one persons reasons for doing good is somehow superior to another.

[cleanhippie]

27. So what does it mean exactly when one does something because their religion demands it?

Whether its feeding the poor because one believes god wants it or passing a "kill the gays" law because one believes god wants it, it's all the same brush.

[rickford66]

36. I will say this

The brush has a few strands that do good for no other reason than it's the right thing to do, but history is on my side. My opinion through years of observation. Followers are called that for a reason. They follow orders.

[cbayer]

37. Pshaw. I follow politics. Right now I am following post season baseball.

Making blanket statements about enormous groups of people that vary in more ways than they resemble each other is not the right thing to do, imo. It's intolerant and when used in the extreme is bigotry.

[rickford66]

38. Why were heaven and hell created?

Hey, religion is fine. Just keep me out of it. I know more intolerant, bigoted religious folks than intolerant, bigoted atheists.

[cbayer]

40. Confirmation bias.

If you meet any intolerant, bigoted religious folks in this group, be sure to point that out. In the meantime, you might want to check your own intolerance at the door.

[rickford66]

41. Where do you get that I'm intolerant?

I have no biases. I believe in the Golden Rule. No Heaven or Hell. You have no idea if I'm Muslim, Catholic, Baptist, Buddhist, atheist or Martian. I stated my personal beliefs and observations. How can you criticize them?

[cbayer]

42. This is a bias:

Those who believe in God, do the right thing because they either seek the reward of Heaven or fear the punishment of Hell. Atheists do the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

You have made a determination and applied it to very large groups of people without regard to the vast differences between them.

As I said, believers do good things for lots of reasons, some of them having nothing to do with their seeking reward or fearing punishment.

Likewise, atheists do good things for lots of reasons and it's not always just because it's the right thing to do.

Your statement is, to me, intolerant of people who may be different than you.

[rickford66]

43. I'm not intolerant of those different than me.

They can do whatever they please. I only shared my beliefs and observations. Maybe you're intolerant of my beliefs. I certainly could care less about yours.

[cbayer]

44. OK. Hang on to your beliefs.

Nice talking to you.

[rickford66]

45. Were you hoping to change my beliefs and observations?

If I expressed a belief in UFOs and said I observed one, would I be intolerant or biased against those who don't believe in them or observed them? And I will hang on to my beliefs until I observe different.

[cbayer]

46. I was hoping that you would recognize that your broad brush observations are faulty.

If you hang around here I think you will see all kinds of believers that do good things for the right reasons and not merely for a heavenly reward or to avoid hell as a punishment.

What I read from your statement, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that atheists are somehow superior to believers because they do good things for the right reasons.

If that is your personal belief, you certainly have the right to express it. But I would encourage you to open that to question.

[rickford66]

47. I believe it comes down to right and wrong.

Most religions (as far as I know) teach right and wrong. So if a believer does "right", isn't it because he/she was taught? If an atheist does "right" without any teaching of right and wrong, wouldn't it be because that person sort of figured it out themselves? I didn't imply atheists were superior, only that they were motivated differently. Of course there are exceptions to every rule. I've noticed on DU, that no matter what anyone posts, there is plenty of criticism. Sometimes very nit picking. If I said the Earth is round, I know there'd be the usual "No it's pear shaped" comments. By the way, name a tolerant religion.

[cbayer]

50. I don't think religions can always answer the questions of right and wrong.

People have to answer those for themselves, though they may use some basic principles to guide them.

In my experience, those principles seem pretty universal, whether they are taught as part of a religious upbringing or not.

Since we know there are a lot of *religious* people who do some really horrible thing, I would suggest that the correlation you suggest is really faulty.

Name a tolerant religion? I would assume that this means you don't know of any.

Although not religious at this point, I was raised in an extremely tolerant religious environment.

When you come into the religion group and make broad brush statements about religious people, you should expect some pushback. This is where some religious people who are on your team hang out.

That's no nitpicking, that's trying to increase understanding and tolerance.

[rickford66]

53. Sorry

I replied to a "Latest Threads" not taking notice that it was a "religion" group. I am not intolerant or biased and only expressed my observations. As long as religious people leave me alone I don't care what they do. They can grow long beards, cover their faces, refrain from dancing, drinking or smoking, avoid modern conveniences, protest abortions, bark at the moon .... whatever. I'll stick with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and not return here.

[PDJane]

10. Looking around at the world with wonder doesn't require religion.

In fact, my wonder increased when I came to the conclusion that there was no God and that God didn't make this. This is a system that evolved, and we are all part of Gaia's net.

That doesn't mean that religion is necessary to appreciate it. I didn't expect something that assinine from Oprah.

[rug]

12. In Awe of Everything

There is an experience which is common to every religious belief system. It is the sense of coming face-to-face with something far greater and immeasurably more vast than yourself, glimpsing the essence of reality and being overawed by it. In the Buddhist tradition, it is often referred to as satori; Christian charismatics call it the sense of God’s presence or the Holy Spirit moving in one’s heart; while a devotee of a mystical sect might refer to it as union with the Absolute. More commonly, it is simply referred to as the human sense of spirituality. Whatever one chooses to call it, though, it is a powerful and profoundly moving experience, one which often has long-lasting effects on a person’s view of the world. The reality of this occurrence may well be a major reason accounting for the popularity and power of religion even today.

Some readers undoubtedly will have noticed the word “reality” in the previous sentence. That is not a mistake or a careless phrasing; I fully agree that these experiences are real. I should know, because I occasionally have them myself.

That might, at first, seem like a strange admission for an atheist to make. But the crucial point is that I agree with theists that the feelings associated with these experiences are real; we merely differ on what causes them. I maintain that love, joy, wonder, awe, and all the other feelings humans experience are caused by electrochemical activity within the brain, although I do not believe that this makes them any less real or meaningful. However, the physical basis for these feelings is surveyed in “A Ghost in the Machine“, and so will not be further discussed here. The topic of this essay will instead be how atheism can in fact be a far more spiritual experience than any religion.

Imagine the first human communities, the first civilizations to arise in the history of our species. The planet they lived on would have been very different from the one we are used to today. From space, it would have been utterly darkened on the night side, without a single glimmer of light to suggest that it was inhabited. The night sky as these people would have seen it, pure and dark, is a thing almost unimaginable to many people today. In the present era, those who dwell in large cities can see a few dozen stars at night; those who live in suburban areas, probably a few hundred. These people would have seen thousands, each one as sharp and brilliant as diamonds spilled across the firmament. On clear nights, the Milky Way itself must have been visible, the plane of the galaxy like a pale misty arch spanning the sky. To lie back and take it all in must have induced vertigo, as if the cosmos was not overhead but below, a starry abyss into which one could fall and be lost forever.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/in-awe-of-everything/

[AtheistCrusader]

39. That's because Religion is a human-invented coping mechanism for the unknown.

But, we've gotten better.

[mr blur]

17. What an incredibly stupid person Oprah seems to be. nt

[Jim__]

18. Diana Nyad certainly doesn't seem to be offended by what Oprah says.

Oprah expressed an opinion as part of an ongoing conversation between 2 people about what they believe. Jumping on one or two sentences out of a conversation and making more out of it than it meant to the conversation is ridiculous. In the short excerpt that is available at the link from the OP, the women seem to be having an open, honest and pleasant discussion.

[edhopper]

31. Whether she offended Nyad or not

or whether Nyad had the good grace to let it go for the sake of propriety.
What Oprah said is ignorant and offensive to many atheists.
It doesn't matter how small a part of the conversation it was.
Oprah's beliefs are full of woo and new age delusions. She was a big supporter of "The Secret."

[Jim__]

35. "If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Wow! How insulting to people who spent years building their business! Yes, it is insulting. But, the larger context matters, and it is only insulting if it is taken out of context:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

Oprah's sentence was part of a discussion about Nyad's beliefs, a respectful and interesting conversation about Nyad's beliefs. If Nyad was offended, she could easily have challenged Oprah. Oprah expressed an opinion: I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery, then that is what God is. According to her definition of God, Nyad does believe in God. Later in the interview she asks Nyad about her spiritual beliefs, being an atheist; so she accepts Nyad's self-definition as an atheist.

When 2 people with different beliefs discuss their beliefs, obviously they disagree about some things. That is not offensive. Jumping on one, out of context sentence from a conversation and then claiming that the person who made the statement is either stupid or deliberately offensive, implies that we can only have conversations between people who believe the exact same things. Again, if Nyad were offended, and said so, based on the tone of this conversation, my expectation is that Oprah would try to restate her opinion in an inoffensive way; or try to reach some understanding of the offense.

[edhopper]

48. Two things

your example is ridiculous because this was not out of context. It is clearly what Oprah said and meant.

Second, it wasn't about them having different beliefs, it was about Oprah disagreeing with and denying what Nyad's beliefs were.

That she then goes on to give an incredibly vague and useless definition of God is meaningless.

And as I said, she offended many atheists with here stupidity, that Nyad raised above it at the time is beside the point.

Amazing that you defend her.

[Jim__]

51. Of course it's out of context. For instance, do you know what Nyad had just said to Oprah?

The quote in the OP is not the full text of what she had just said. Without looking at the video, do you know what she said? Is it pertinent to Oprah's response? Before that quoted text, Nyad said:

I don't see why anybody would find a contradiction in that.

That being an atheist in awe. So, Oprah's reply was directly on point to what Nyad had just said. And, no, Oprah wasn't denying what Nyad believes. She was responding with what she saw as the contradiction, responding directly to what Nyad had just said. It is the normal flow of a conversation, the normal flow of a friendly, respectful conversation. The conversation, at least the part of it that is on the video, began with Nyad having described herself as not a God person but as a person deeply in awe.

And, no Oprah doesn't deny Nyad's beliefs. As I stated in post 35, later in the conversation Oprah says to Nyad:

An atheist in awe. So, do you consider yourself a spiritual person, even as an atheist?

So, she clearly accepted Nyad's claim to be an atheist in awe.

But, of course, none of this is the real point. The simple fact is that two people who had different beliefs were having a friendly, respectful conversation. Under those circumstances, one person can easily say something offensive. If she does, the other can call her on it, or ignore it, as she sees fit. If she ignores it, then the original speaker has no way to know she has been offensive.

Such conversations between people with different beliefs are important. Such conversations are the way we learn about each other's beliefs. Such conversations become much less likely if after the conversation other people look for out-of-context quotes that they can mine to make mountains out of molehills and to make people regret having engaged in such a conversation.

[trotsky]

52. Now that's rich.

Such conversations become much less likely if after the conversation other people look for out-of-context quotes that they can mine to make mountains out of molehills and to make people regret having engaged in such a conversation.

Can't wait to see you jump in on the next Richard Dawkins BBQ thread to defend him on a quote taken out of context, Jim.

[gcomeau]

54. I don't think you quite grasp the concept...

...of "out of context".

That statement you just quoted of Nyad's does *nothing whatsoever* to alter the meaning or offensiveness of Oprah's remark... unlike the hugely altering impact the wider context of Obama's statement had on the meaning of what he was saying.

[Jim__]

56. Yes, I quite grasp the concept.

From the free dictionary:

*out of context
<of an utterance or the report of an action> removed from the surrounding context of the event, thereby misrepresenting the intent of the utterance or report.

As clearly pointed out in post #51, Nyad's utterance just prior to Oprah's response had pertinent text removed from the quote.

[gcomeau]

57. Perhaps...

...you should read this part of that definition:

" thereby misrepresenting the intent of the utterance or report."


...a little more carefully. As already pointed out to you Nyad's statement did absolutely nothing whatsoever to alter the meaning or offensiveness of Oprah's remark. So omitting Nyad's statement is not removing context and the statement was never taken out of context.

[Jim__]

59. "Intent" can only be inferred.

The basis of any inference is context. In this case, the immediate context of Oprah's utterance is the previous statement made by Nyad. And, yes, the full statement made by Nyad puts Oprah's remarks in a very different context then the context implied by the misrepresentation of that statement that is actually given - a misrepresentation because it doesn't even contain a leading ellipsis as an acknowledgement that it is not the full statement. All of this has already been discussed in post #51.

[gcomeau]

60. For fuck's sake...

" In this case, the immediate context of Oprah's utterance is the previous statement made by Nyad. "

And let's try this one more time.

WHEN YOU READ THE STATEMENT BY NYAD THEN READ OPRAH'S RESPONSE OPRAH'S STATEMENT MAINTAINS THE EXACT SAME FUCKING MEANING AND OFFENSIVENESS AS WHEN YOU READ IT IN ISOLATION.



So no, this is not a case of a statement taken out of context. Learn what the damn phrase means.

[Jim__]

61. In my experience, people who can make a rational argument, make it.

As I pointed out to you in posts #56 and #59, I made my argument in post #51. Not only have you not refuted that argument, you have not even attempted to address it. Your declarations are not arguments. And shouting:

WHEN YOU READ THE STATEMENT BY NYAD THEN READ OPRAH'S RESPONSE OPRAH'S STATEMENT MAINTAINS THE EXACT SAME FUCKING MEANING AND OFFENSIVENESS AS WHEN YOU READ IT IN ISOLATION.

is just childishness, not a substitute for argument. Perhaps you could have someone help you formulate a rational response.

[gcomeau]

62. Your argument in post 51.

..was refuted in posts 54, 57 AND 60.

You simply ignored 54 and 57, which is why 60 moved to all caps in an effort to get you to actually read the words being typed. An effort that clearly failed since you're still claiming I "haven't even attempted to address" your post 51 when that is all I've been doing for three posts in a row.

Your reading comprehension problems do not constitute a rebuttal of my rebuttal.

[Goblinmonger]

19. I appreciate the sentiment of believers here, but realize

that this is called "every day" for me. I hear crap like this all the time.

But, really, I appreciate what is being said by people in here in support of atheists. Gives me back some hope.

[hrmjustin]

24. I am sorry you hear this everyday. I wish people would leave people alone.

[cleanhippie]

28. Talk to your fellow believers, then.

For its mostly (if not nearly always) believers that are "bothering" people.

[hrmjustin]

29. I understand what the poster was saying and was sympathizing.

[cleanhippie]

30. I know. Me too.

[Mariana]

55. To be honest, religious people have this done to them, too.

Here's a scenario that happens all the time - you've certainly seen examples of it: Christian A publicly acts like a jerk. Christian B doesn't approve of Christian A's behavior, so Christian B says (directly or indirectly) that Christian A isn't really a Christian. Often that's done by simply putting the word "Christian" in quotes when referring to Christian A. The implication is clear enough.

Of course, this isn't unique to Christians by any means. The same thing goes on among people who follow other religions. I don't think it's any less offensive than what Oprah said.

[el_bryanto]

20. Not the most offensive ignorance

Or I don't know - what is worse.

"Why you are a generally good person - you must be a believer like me."

or

"You aren't a believer like me; it's too bad you are condemned to hell."

I guess I would argue that the impulse to be charitable and to build connections is probably better than the impulse to be exclusive and believe poorly of your fellow person, even if it is expressed in unfortunate ways.

Bryant

[cbayer]

21. What a stupid and insulting thing to say.

Oprah can define god any way she wants and she should respect the right of others to do so as well.

[Iggo]

23. Fuck Oprah.

Sick of this shit.

[Dorian Gray]

33. I think

that she sounds somewhat ignorant.

It's difficult to believe that The Oprah has never met atheistic friends who see wonder in this world everywhere they look. Nature and scientific discovery offer awe-inspiring wonder every day. You don't need to believe in God to experience it.

[cleanhippie]

34. You're right, except its willful ignorance.

At least she attempts to support her claim with something of substance, even though it is wrong.

[Mariana]

58. Maybe she's decided that none of them are atheists, either.

[gcomeau]

49. Tell you what Oprah...

"I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery, then that is what God is."

Awe and wonder are emotional states. Products of the mind, that exist only in the mind. They do not do things like running around creating universes or handing down moral commandments to their creation or granting people eternal life after death. They're just feelings.


If Oprah is saying God only exists in the mind of believers as opposed to all that other mystical superstitious nonsense... DEAL! We're agreed.



...and Oprah bridges the great philosophical divide between theism and atheism. Amazing! The long war is finally over! Peace in our time!