 |
|
|
|
|
October 16th, 2013
03:20 PM ET
What Oprah gets wrong about atheism
(CNN) - To some, Oprah Winfrey appears to have an almost godlike status. Her talents are well recognized, and her endorsement can turn almost any product into an overnight bestseller. This godlike perception is fitting, since in recent years Winfrey’s work has increasingly emphasized spirituality, including programs like her own "Super Soul Sunday." But what happens when an atheist enters the mix? A few days ago Winfrey interviewed long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad on Super Soul Sunday. Nyad identified herself as an atheist who experiences awe and wonder at the natural world and humanity. Nyad, 64, who swam from Cuba to Key West last month, said “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 have lived before us, who have loved and hurt.” Winfrey responded, “Well I don’t call you an atheist then.” Winfrey went on, “I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery then that is what God is… It’s not a bearded guy in the sky.” Nyad clarified that she doesn’t use the word God because it implies a “presence… a creator or an overseer.” Winfrey’s response may have been well intended, but it erased Nyad’s atheist identity and suggested something entirely untrue and, to many atheists like me, offensive: that atheists don’t experience awe and wonder. MORE ON CNN: Diana Nyad completes historic Cuba-to-Florida swim 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. MORE ON CNN: Behold, the six types of atheists 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. Carl Sagan, the agnostic astronomer and author, would have agreed with Nyad’s claim that you can be an atheist, agnostic or nonreligious person and consider yourself “spiritual.” As Sagan wrote in "The Demon-Haunted World,": "When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.” Nyad told Winfrey that she feels a similar sense of awe: “I think you can be an atheist who doesn’t believe in an overarching being who created all of this and sees over it,” she said. “But there’s spirituality because we human beings, and we animals, and maybe even we plants, but certainly the ocean and the moon and the stars, we all live with something that is cherished and we feel the treasure of it.” MORE ON CNN: 'Atheist' isn’t a dirty word, congresswoman I experience that same awe when I see people of different beliefs coming together across lines of religious difference to recognize that we are all human — that we all love and hurt. Perhaps Winfrey, who could use her influence to shatter stereotypes about atheists rather than reinforce them, would have benefited from listening to Nyad just a bit more closely and from talking to more atheists about awe and wonder. I know many who would be up to the task. Chris Stedman is the assistant humanist chaplain at Harvard University, coordinator of humanist life for the Yale Humanist Community and author of Faitheist: How an Atheist Found Common Ground with the Religious. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team and frequent posts from religion scholar and author Stephen Prothero.  |
|
|
|
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| 
So glad this happened. More and more good individuals are speaking out and not keeping their spirituality to themselves. I hope Oprah learned something and is getting all kinds of feed back from this. It's not going away...so glad to be an atheist.
This is a good talk by Dan Dennett at Cal Tech. Dr. Dennett looks at religion and "belief in belief". He discusses how some concepts regarding belief evolved; how certain concepts were normalized, much in the way many things are in the physical world, from planning, and sometimes from an obvious lack of planning.
That's Oprah for you.
I'm shocked to find such a well-written, insightful article about atheism on CNN. I suppose they should be commended for that.
"To some, Oprah Winfrey appears to have an almost godlike status.."–Agreed!!!
Also, Oprah is a god unto herself.
As evidenced by each cover of "O" magazine.
"Oprahism" or "Opraham"
The angels that sing her praises = Opraphim
From the article, "Knowing someone of a different ident.ity can increase understanding"
This is a very simple concept. Religion is fading because young people have more access to differnt ideas and more information than ever before. Society is making more decisoins based on knowledge, reason, and ethics than on religious myths.
There is hope for the world.
If there's one thing religionists fear it is widespread acceptance of moral relativism and respectful discourse between those of differing worldviews.
God really hates that kind thing, you know.
Just look at the first three commandments...
It's interesting that some viruses seem to occur in multiple infections – more than one type of HIV in one host, for example. Others seem to occur in only one clone or type per host. People have suggested these can exclude other types somehow, perhaps like God does.
My church doesn't preach this. Quite the opposite.
Any cursory look at history suggests that nothing is more self-evident than moral relativism.
Everyone I know is of a different identi.ty than me. How could it be otherwise?
But in the internet world I can steal your identi.ty, not that I would, oops. My bad.
If not me then who
Oprah always bring out the Creed in me.
Only for the new visitors to this blog-
The Apostles' Creed 2013: (updated by yours truly and based on the studies of historians and theologians of the past 200 years)
Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven??
I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)
Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,
He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Jerusalem.
Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.
Amen
(references used are available upon request)
Religious blogs bring out the creed in you.
Kicking puppies brings the creed out of you.
Breathing air brings the creed out of you.
Copy/pasting isn't a skill...it's an obsession.
Creeds are written to be reiterated in order to hammer the truth into our neurons. Then there is this:
As a good student, you have read the reiterations of the "fems" (flaws, errors, muck and stench) of religion. Therefore the seeds have been planted in rich soil. Go therefore and preach the truth to all nations, reiterating as you go amongst the lost, bred, born and brainwashed souls of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism as Rational Thinking makes its triumphant return all because of you!!!!
More copy/paste. Face it, you are an addict.
Google it... he has been posting that exact same thing for over 2 years. Ugh.
Besides not believing in the existence of God, a main reason atheists are perceived that way is they don't believe in the spiritual world which is metaphysical. Prime examples are: consciousness, mind, love, etc. Atheists attribute the aforementioned to mere "chemical reactions."
Pheromones can sometimes send off the wrong signals hence a dog trying to dry hump your leg, or the moose trying to get it on with a horse, screwed up chemical reactions indeed.
No, the label "atheist" is perceived the way it is because the religious (particularly from organized religions) conflate the term with anti-theist and categorize *all* atheists as wanting to destroy religion. (Clearly some do, but they are a minority of a minority.)
I will stipulate that we haven't the foggiest idea how our brains form the concepts of truth, beauty, and love, but to say "God did it" is a bit simplistic, don't you think?
but to say "God did it" is a bit simplistic, don't you think?
Yes. And there are plenty of examples of religious people that don't say that that contradict your theory.
But that's what Vic says.
Vic
You may want to catch up with reality. Many mammals show some degree of emotions that you attribute to the spiritual world, do the animals have access to our human god/spiritual myths?
From the article:
"Carl Sagan, the agnostic astronomer and author, would have agreed with Nyad’s claim that you can be an atheist, agnostic or nonreligious person and consider yourself “spiritual.”
I think there is a large camp in the "spiritual but not religious" camp for whom this is very true, yet don't want to be associated with atheist or even agnositic labels, even though privately they are not theists, or even deists.
There is no reason that an atheist cannot have a deep awe for the universe around us and a appreciation for love and beauty. These are things that are self-evident to the sentient, even if we don't yet know where or how these concepts exist in our brain. Saying that they are a manifestation of God is a cop-out.
The author equivocates. He wants to have his cake & eat it, too.
Atheism believes there is nothing but the material (i.e., naturalism, no higher being, etc.).
It NECESSARILY excludes the spiritual. BY DEFINITION.
To say "I'm still spiritual" but begin by eliminating the possibility of the spiritual realm as one's central thesis...
it just lacks any intellectual honesty. Have the integrity to embrace the consequences of your beliefs.
It's not that complex: you can't be both spiritual & believe there is no such thing.
The problem is a sematic one.
We simply don't have a word in English that means what the author wants to convey except "spiritual" or similar metaphysical words.
What word would you use for people who have a deep awe of the universe and the world around us and are as equally moved by it as people who see it as "God's creation"?
@ GOP: your question is genuine, but *out of respect* I am drawing the line.
having awe at the size of existence is categorically different than having awe at a supposed Architect of said existence.
the former brings no imperative into the beholder's life.
the latter absolutely does (pun intended).
@Russ,
"having awe at the size of existence is categorically different than having awe at a supposed Architect of said existence."
But that is exactly what the author was talking about, the awe of existence, not of any supposed Architect.
@ ME II: and yet my point was the exact opposite. the author is changing the meaning of the word to its opposite.
he doesn't believe in God – so for him, it's the same thing. that makes sense from his perspective.
but it is a refusal to even entertain the fundamental divide the other side is claiming.
consider the opposite: how outraged are the atheists here at what Oprah implied (simply folding your beliefs into her own – with no regard to the violence it does to your beliefs)?
@Russ,
I guess I wasn't aware that Theists own the word awe.
"awe
noun
a feeling of reverential respect mixed with fear or wonder:
they gazed in awe at the small mountain of diamonds
the sight filled me with awe
his staff members are in awe of him
archaic capacity to inspire awe:
is it any wonder that Christmas Eve has lost its awe?"
(http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/awe)
@ ME II: where did you see me claiming that theists have a monopoly on the word awe? my objection was to his use of 'spiritual.'
You appear to deliberately miss the point.
I'll concede that the word 'spirituality' is about belief in the supernatural. What is a better choice of words. I submit that there may not be one.
God is not real to me even if you insist that the wonders of the universe *are* his creation.
@ GOP: i wasn't intentionally missing your point. I was honoring your beliefs by noting that – unlike the author of this article – we fundamentally claiming different things.
awe at the intricacy and expansiveness of what atheists themselves have often labeled as random meaninglessness is not at all the same thing as theistic awe (which sees that awe as a compelling action toward that Creator). it shouldn't be insulting for BOTH sides to agree that we are not talking at all about the same thing. the theist's awe compels a radical reorientation centered around the Creator. the atheist is claiming that awe for the exact opposite purpose. why is it insulting or "deliberately missing the point" to note that is the enormity of our divide on this most foundational topic? i would think it is actually respect to call it what it is.
@Russ,
my suggestion was that the author was indeed describing something different (on that point we agree) but lacked the vocabulary to express it 'properly', which was the point of my original question.
All words I can think of that relate to sprituality, metaphysics or mysticism have religious connotations.
"Random meaninglessness" – I see wonderful complexity and also simplicity and symmetry in nature. It is meaningless in the sense that there is no mind other than that of the observer behind it. I think believers may still be animists at their core, seeing meaning in things that have no intelligent Creator or Designer.
@ TTTOO: I hear you reading my beliefs through your grid & respectfully do the reciprocal with you.
and yet that is exactly what Oprah did above that appears to have so many atheists up in arms...
someone who quotes the bible speaking about intellectual honesty? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
@ Dog: sarcasm doesn't substi.tute for honest dialogue or a substantive point.
I think what Russ is trying to say is that there is only one kind of blue, his blue, and if you claim to see blue then you must be seeing his blue and shouldn't ever call it sky blue or sea blue or navy blue, it's his blue, blue damn it!!
Yes. The notion that we experience an awe of the universe (and truth beauty etc) but are apparently too stupid to realize that these are manifestations of the divine feels more than a little insulting *respectfully speaking*.
@ GOP: that's a two-way street. are you not claiming the opposite as an atheist?
and – worthy of note – there's a difference between not recognizing something & stupidity.
@Russ,
"are you not claiming the opposite as an atheist?"
No. The concepts of awe, beauty, love etc are self-evident in humans. The question of where they come from and why they are there is relevant. I simply don't see any evidence that they are manifestations of the divine the way you do.
Your logic is, they exist and I can't explain them, therefore they are manifestations of God.
My logic is, they exist and I can't explain them, so we have some homework to do.
These questions are about 'truth' – an altogether unsovlable problem and one that has vexed philosophers since the dawn of time.
@ GOP: awe, beauty & love are self-evident? i think that in & of itself has been debated for a long time – especially in light of atheism.
while certainly one might mock my belief in a Creator, such awe & beauty & love are fully understandable in light of that metaphysical grid. however, within an atheist's grid, those same concepts raise much greater problems (do they merely serve our evolutionary survival instincts? if so, are they real in any sense? they might be useful, but not – in & of themselves – beautiful, etc.). the theists are mocked for believing in a Designer while the atheists are questioned for pragmatic beliefs that do not comport with their metaphysical presuppositions.
both groups should rightly expect to be challenged & questioned on their respective grounds. and yet for some reason you deem my questioning of your grid as thinking you are "too stupid" but don't see your reciprocal questioning of me as assuming the SAME things you are complaining I have assumed about you?
Exactly. I knew Russ was in trouble when I read "Atheism believes", "BY DEFINITION" and "central thesis". Lol.
@ Doris: so you deny that atheism doesn't believe in the absence of the spiritual? or are you purposefully dodging the point?
I thought it was strange that you restricted atheists beliefs to things that are material, Russ. I said as much somewhere around here.
As the point was made to you above, Russ, it is a matter of semantics. Another's definition of spirituality is likely different from yours – even among believers. You like to pigeon-hole things into nice neat boxes and do not seem comfortable when you can't firmly categorize something according to Webster and your own interpretation of your god's "word". It was quite obvious from your OP.
@ Doris: semantics? the word is a-theism. literally: "no belief in god."
@ TTTOO: what non-material existence is there if there is no Spirit?
for both of you, it appears you are *presupposing* that to speak of 'the spiritual' is merely a metaphor of some sort. but that is the entire debate in question. what – if anything – are you speaking of (metaphysically) that is 'spiritual' & not material in an existence without the transcendent reality of God?
Russ: "what – if anything – are you speaking of (metaphysically) that is 'spiritual' & not material in an existence without the transcendent reality of God?"
Probably something very different from whatever you mean when you say "spiritual", Russ. Whatever it is, you'll never be able to take it away from us, and it sounds like you'll have a difficult time ever "bucketizing" it in your museum because I believe you often *pre-suppose* how others might think about it.
@ Just the facts: ironically, so are you. everyone here is claiming that unique angle. and that's the missed point of the classic "blind men & the elephant" story so often used to mock religious truth claims. why else would you be mocking me – except that you are making an OPPOSITE claim to truth?
per the elephant & blind men:
"In the famous story of the blind men and the elephant… the real point of the story is constantly overlooked. The story is told from the point of view of the king and his courtiers, who are not blind but can see that the blind men are unable to grasp the full reality of the elephant and are only able to get hold of part of it. The story is constantly told in order to neutralize the affirmations of the great religions, to suggest that they learn humility and recognize that none of them can have more than one aspect of the truth. But, of course, the real point of the story is exactly the opposite. If the king were also blind, there would be no story. What this means then is that there is an appearance of humility and a protestation that the truth is much greater than anyone of us can grasp. But if this is used to invalidate all claims to discern the truth, it is in fact an arrogant claim with the kind of knowledge which is superior that you have just said, no religion has."
-Lesslie Newbigin
@Russ,
" ironically, so are you. everyone here is claiming that unique angle. ... why else would you be mocking me – except that you are making an OPPOSITE claim to truth?"
I would suggest that everyone else is not claiming the opposite, but simply that the definition includes both/all. One can feel awe regardless of the object/being/concept which caused the awe. It is a description of the feeling not an indication of the cause of the feeling.
Russ, what you don't want to admit is that an atheist can at the same time experience the same internal feeling and rationalize it as awesome and incredible but not divine and call it a connection to nature or whatever without accepting your or anyone elses definition of "God" or even "spirit". You imagine those feeling to be supernatural, we atheists feel the same things and call them natural. The other concept you seem to want to ignore is that atheists by definition are NOT ruling out the possibility of higher powers, they are catagorically refuting other humans who claim they know or have proof and yet have not provided even a speck of evidence for their brand of deity. The atheist position is "I do not see any evidence supporting any God/gods therefore I do not believe in any that have been presented" and it is not "I have researched eveything and know everything and can see in the deepest corners of the universe and there definitively is no God/gods or anything that could be considered such." as the latter would presume far to much to be found logical or reasonable.
@ ME II: I never said one can't feel awe while being an atheist. I pointed out that it does press certain questions about what you *do* with that awe & what its purpose is.
but my main objection was to equating such 'awe' with being 'spiritual' – especially considering the latter is directly contrary to the notion of atheism.
There are, of course, many things that are not material, Russ: facts and physical laws would be two.
@ TTTOO: so you equate physical laws with spirituality? do you regard the conceptual realm as spiritual? Platonic atheist?
If there is a Creator, we can be absolutely certain that it isn't the one presented in the Christian religion.
@ Sue: this often-repeated statement requires omniscience. are you claiming to know everything? or on what basis do you preclude a transcendent Being which cannot contravene your current understanding (notably, an understanding most would admit is constantly in flux)?
“I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery then that is what God is.."
Appreciating beauty and being stupidifed by the grandeur and vastness of existence does not equal religion or even faith. It's a human condition. Perhaps one could call it a spiritual aspect of ourselves but it's not unique to christians or any religious group. All humans can be taken by the ineffable quality of life and existence.
I think that often Theists actually think they are being generous by trying to include Atheists, by some obscure logic, in the circle of the speaker, as if inviting a wayward child to dinner. They are trying to nice.
What they don't seem to understand is that Atheists don't want to be in that circle, and it is not nice, but condescending.
I still marvel (or actually chortle) at Wolf Blitzer's goof when he asked the survivor of the recent Oklahoma tornado if she thanked "God" for saving her, not knowing that she is an atheist!
They both laughed at the mistake, I believe. No big deal.
Oprah has an opinion for every occasion and does not listen to other people much at all.
I suppose when you get that rich and powerful, you are constantly surrounded with people telling you how right you are all the time. It's living inside an Oprah bubble so you lose touch with reality...
which is like Christians who live inside the Christian bubble and never understand all that we now know scientifically ... who homeschool their kids and teach them fantasy so their kids are kept in the bubble, who watch and read nothing but christian tv and radio and books ... you lose touch with reality.
Yeah because atheists would never find themselves in a bubble...never ever.
you finally got one right ... "atheists never find themselves in a bubble...never ever"
Except for the bubble of their own ego.
No more than I'm offended by the easter bunny, big foot, ghosts or UFOs
I'm pretty sure Stedman meant he was offended by Oprah's dipshit comment, than about being offended by a reference to a god
If we are looking for dips hit comments Oprah has always been a good place to find them.
It does sound pretty silly everytime a theist tries to twll a non-theist "Well X is your god, then." They are so threatened by a world in which one doesn't believe in gods that they're willing to attribute God status to Dawkins, nature, the self...whatever. Once you do that, what was the point of the word god in the first place?
People are different and have very diverse beliefs. Folks just need to get over it if they want to see life as it is. I don't believe in libertarian free will, and I couldn't count the number of nitwits that have told me that even if I intellectually don't believe in it, of course I feel it and act as though I have it. Uh, no. I feel determined. End story. I think I know myself better than you do. Give atheists the same credit. They don't go around saying "By god, of course, you really just mean nature." OK, probably a few idiots do...there are a few everywhere.
Poor Oprah....all that money and she can't even buy a lick of intelligence.
God.
got one better......
for an atheist, the combination shift+g in the word "God" is harder than pressing two magnet sides together with the same polarity.
Christians arguing stories from their bible vs. scientific facts is like arguing about Santa's sleigh flying ... sure it says it flies in the stories but the facts are that there is no Santa (sorry kids), there is no magic sleigh, and there are no magical reindeer to guide his sleigh tonight. Anyone using any story in the bible as a fact to argue against scientifically proven evidence is deluding themselves and annoying the sane.
And you Christians wonder why we atheists sound annoyed all the time.
I always figured you had too much fiber in your diet.
"13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on[b] its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!" Joshua 10:13,14
Believer: "Yup, it happened"
Astronomer: "Nope, that did not happen"
Believer: Yeah it did, my book says so"
Astronomer: "Well all of the collected science and discovery and understanding about the universe thus far makes that statement out of the bible an impossibility"
Believer: "Nothing is impossible for God..."
Astronomer: "... sigh..."
Yesterday Topher was saying that he belives it likely that the Roman Empire drastically changed their means of tax collection and census taking becuase the Caesar could read the signs in the stars that The Messiah was coming.
Even in the face of all the docu/mentation we have from that era proving otherwise.
Cuz, you know – Jesus is magic and stuff.
It doesn't exist. On the other hand most Christians on this board are very offensive
Scroll up and I think the percentages will lean toward the atheists being offensive a bit more. It could change.
Yep – like where you accused an atheist of kicking puppies?
I'm not atheist.
Sarcasm doesn't sink into your head very well does it?
Finally, Oprah found her match!
Can someone quickly arrange an interview between Oprah and Chris Stedman?