[YOUTUBE]vr0NBPRMe2E[/YOUTUBE]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;368323][URL]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-atheist-be-in-awe-of-universe/[/URL][/QUOTE]
I have to say I'm quite shocked at Oprah Winfrey's blinkered view of what lies behind human awe and wonder. I don't know anything about her, but I had assumed that as a successful talk show host she would have excellent understanding of human motivations and emotions in all their diversity.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;368390]I have to say I'm quite shocked at Oprah Winfrey's blinkered view of what lies behind human awe and wonder. I don't know anything about her, but I had assumed that as a successful talk show host she would have excellent understanding of human motivations and emotions in all their diversity.[/QUOTE]Disclaimer: I'm an atheist in the sense that the Abrahamic religions would use.

To me, Winfrey's definition of the term "God" appears both sound and relevant. At least two respected Jewish thinkers, Spinoza and Einstein, have defined God in similar terms. "God is that quality which makes the universe comprehensible despite there being no [i]a priori[/i] expectation that it should be. The observation that the universe is ordered in a profound way is truly awesome when one considers the alternatives."

Good cases could be made that the definition in question is closely related to a number of non-Abrahamic (and non-Zorostrian) religions which associated a"God" with a natural phenomemon which could not be understood in any detail but which nevertheless was real and awesome. Consider Maat and Re in the Egyptian pantheon, or Athena and Helios in the Greek tradition. More recently thinkers such as Ray Kurzweil have expounded the view that "God" has yet to be created but that the creation is inevitable as intelligence spreads throughout the universe at close to the speed of light. In this view, "God" is an all-pervading universal intelligence.

In my view "God" is not a guy in a white nightshirt sitting on a cloud somewhere above the sky but is something entirely more mysterious and, indeed, awesome.


Paul

Okay, and thanks. Perhaps, when reading the Scientific American article to which Mike linked, my reaction was focussed too much on my perceived interpretation of Oprah Winfrey's words. This was, in my own words, "atheists cannot feel awe and wonder". That is not what she said, though, and the leap of interpretation that I made may well have been unjustified.

I don't think you can posit that Spinoza's view of deity is anything close to Oprah's view. The part Shermer left out from the interview has Oprah implying that Nyad will regret her Atheism at her last breath, when she has an "oh wow" moment.

However, Nyad's spiritualism and concept of a 'soul' living on past the body can hardly be describing beliefs traditionally ascribed to Atheism.

[URL="http://www.oprah.com/own-super-soul-sunday/Soul-to-Soul-with-Diana-Nyad-Im-an-Atheist-Whos-In-Awe-Video"]full video of interview.[/URL]

[QUOTE=chappy;368406]I don't think you can posit that Spinoza's view of deity is anything close to Oprah's view.[/QUOTE]Fair enough. I wan't clear enough to distingiush between her view and his. Nonetheless, my view remains that Spinoza's view of deity is
compatible with that of a good number of self-pronounced atheists.

[QUOTE=xilman;368410]Fair enough. I wan't clear enough to distingiush between her view and his. Nonetheless, my view remains that Spinoza's view of deity is
compatible with that of a good number of self-pronounced atheists.[/QUOTE]

On that we agree. I'm generally a hard-line atheist (strong agnostic) but, I'll admit moments of panentheistic fancy.

In those moment I view deity as an epiphenomenon of the universe, arising out of the complexity like consciousness, or foam on the beer that I am coincidentally consuming in those moments.

It's difficult to imagine any mechanism of the universe allowing for "oh wow" moments at my last breath.

On watching the interview just now (thankyou Chappy for the link) my general impression was that Oprah Winfrey was never clearly expressing her own view, but was at one or two points playing "devil's advocate" a bit to explore the viewpoint of her interviewee. That, of course, is good practice as an interviewer. The criticism of her as a result of that interview seems unfair to me now that I've seen it.

If the Spinoza view is that "God" is linguistically synonymous with everything we don't understand about the workings of the universe together with the beauty of how it all hangs together, then I have no problem subscribing to it as well.

Awe is an extraordinary emotional response to something
wonderful or new or even ordinary seen in a new light.
It is akin to that most impactful emotion, joy.
However, powerful as it is, it is just an emotion.
It is not valid as a means for deciding truth, especially
the truth or falseness of the "God" question.

The myth that an atheist will acquire "God" on his
deathbed is just another attempt to push "God" as
anything but a self-contradictory idea. Death may
be frightening to most, but the emotions it
generates, like awe, don't determine truth.

[QUOTE=davar55;368500]Awe is an extraordinary emotional response to something
wonderful or new or even ordinary seen in a new light.
It is akin to that most impactful emotion, joy.
However, powerful as it is, it is just an emotion.
It is not valid as a means for deciding truth, especially
the truth or falseness of the "God" question.

The myth that an atheist will acquire "God" on his
deathbed is just another attempt to push "God" as
anything but a self-contradictory idea. Death may
be frightening to most, but the emotions it
generates, like awe, don't determine truth.[/QUOTE]You appear not to have understood us. To some people, the word "God" is [b]defined[/b] to that which causes awe in some (possibly all) circumstances.

[QUOTE=xilman;368579]You appear not to have understood us. To some people, the word "God" is [B]defined[/B] to that which causes awe in some (possibly all) circumstances.[/QUOTE]

I understood that. But to even try to explain awe, a very
wonderful response to something experienced, something
really truly experienced, as supernatural in any way, even
as "God" itself, is to reduce away the awe and elevate "God".

I personally exclude all supernatural definitions of "God" as
being necessarily unreal. I have heard some non-supernatural
definitions of "God", such as God is Everything, God is Nature,
God is My Cat, God is A Flying S. Monster, God is Science.
Except for a personally held emotional definition of "God"
that many people have but which probably should remain
personal, the non-verifiability of all such definitions
properly excludes them from consideration as alternative
definitions. You have to contend with the origins of
the word "God" before trying to redefine it away - unless
you're completely an atheist.

Awe is awe and is real and important. "God" is unreal.