excreationist

I guess there's no stopping this train now...

Yeah, that's pretty annoying. What about physicalist?

You just said it has a "positive" connotation.

So the emotions that "bright" stirs aren't always good...

What's so bad about a "ho-hum" response? That's what being treated as equals is all about - it's a sign that they see someone as being relatively normal. Also, you might need to explain to people what naturalist means as well.

Yeah, naturalist has too many syllables... though I don't think a snappy name is needed for those who don't believe in magic and the supernatural. I thought the lack of belief in God is what matters as far as news goes. I thought non-God magic-related things would be irrelevant in newsworthy items, such as politics.

Many people on this board and the Randi board have heard the term before and many still don't like it...

Yeah, though making up a word or creating a shortened word would make us seem non-pretentious... it would imply that we're trying to change our image though.

Yeah, but when referring to a group of people, "bright" usually means they're smart.

Yeah, that is the intention of people like Dawkins, but in short news segments the reporters wouldn't be able to explain that. They'd simply call the people Brights.

So we're enlightened? We've seen the light... the others are in the dark ages, stumbling about.

Neither do I. I would rather just say that naturalism is what those people believe than say that it is a bright ray a hope - that it is the light, while religion is darkness... that brightism is our salvation... (I know this is a straw-man, but I think it is a bit similar to that theme)

copernicus

The point of the movement is to elevate people's consciousness, not to put them to sleep. You need to get their attention. That is the principal objection to the use of words that stir the interest of intellectuals more than to the population at large.

The name is something new, and it gives us a chance to redefine ourselves. If we are going to change our image, we need to define ourselves differently. The need to change a group image is a driving force behind euphemism. Name changes aren't enough and they don't always work, but they seem to be unavoidable in these kinds of movements.

It is highly unlikely that any social movement is going to go just the way we want it to. We all deplore superficial things like name changes and sloganeering. But this is an opportunity to raise people's awareness of us. I think that there are good reasons to do this that far outweigh the harm. You shouldn't have to be religious to achieve status and respect in modern society. We need to be more active in eliminating social misperceptions about us. The first step is to get people to notice us as a social force.

excreationist

Lots of celebrities and scientists are atheists yet would be respected by most or a lot of Americans. (Less religious nations would be more accepting of atheists)
Being a Bright means more than simply not being religious - if someone believes in some forces that science can't measure that have an effect on our lives, they're not a Bright. They don't believe in supernatural and mystical forces. So those who believe that "everything happens for a reason" mightn't be included, plus those who believe in kind of afterlife, plus those who believe that consciousness has a non-physical basis (dualism)... this would exclude many atheists and agnostics.
If people want to be non-religious they can simply describe themselves as being "secular". That's boring of course, but there would be a lot more people in that group and it is more an opposite to "religious" than "Bright" is...

To be noticed as an actual social force sheer numbers are needed. e.g. in the case of the Greens, there are a lot of supporters involved... and by eliminating those who believe in the things I listed earlier they're really narrowing down their supporters. To be a social force, the masses like the infidel board and the Randi board should be mostly supporting it. For some reason they don't - maybe it's because some of the elites just talked about it amongst themselves.

copernicus

I agree. I don't think that the idea is to include absolutely everyone who opposes orthodox religion. It seems to me that the vast majority of atheists and agnostics are metaphysical naturalists. If the movement is intended to express a positive point of view--the affirmation of natural explanations for natural phenomena--then it can't include everyone who might consider themselves a skeptic of orthodox religion. Just for the record, the Internet Infidels web site, which predates brightism, espouses just the same principles as the Brights. It, too, fails to include every conceivable religious skeptic in its vision statement.

Yes, but the point is to make a fresh start. To be noticed. Hence, the goal of the movement is not just to describe oneself as "secular". It is to try to promote social change. And one doesn't do that by being "boring", as you put it.

Actually, there are lots of entrenched "elites" out there, and I don't think it is fair to just focus on those who promote the Bright Movement. There is a lot of vocal opposition to brightism within the community that it is intended to cover. I don't find that surprising. Such movements have always met with stiff internal opposition from those who have come to terms with their situation, who see themselves as being eclipsed by the latest "Young Turk" movement. I think that brightism appeals more to those religious skeptics who feel estranged and disenfranchised. It has less appeal to the sophisticated and experienced skeptics, who have come to terms with their situation. The more isloated skeptics finally have socially prominent people who are offering to spearhead a drive for social change. Will our own internal divisions stifle the movement? I don't know. Possibly. But I still don't see anything out there that represents a viable alternative. If opponents succeed in blunting the effort, where does that leave us? Right back where we started.

Secular Pinoy

The problem is, the "young turks" have really chosen a bad name. Under a better name, I'd be more receptive to the movement. "Right back where we started" is a lot better than going from bad to worse.

excreationist

So after a lot of thought, they came up with the ultimate new term... "Bright"! I suspect that only a couple people were initially involved who got Richard Dawkins involved to promote it... rather than ask lots of messageboards, etc, for suggestions and the best names could be voted on... or do "market research" on what lots of people think of the possible terms... Well I guess it's too late for that.

Yeah, though the Brights' site doesn't seem worried about that. BTW, I was looking at their being a Bright page and it says:
It's a pity they picked that word that needs to be used so carefully.

I haven't even heard of the "Young Turks"... I don't think they're very common in Australia. Anyway, we're talking about a majority here.... especially on the Randi board... (and he is a supporter)... rather than stiff internal opposition from a vocal minority.

That reminds me about the Brights' site:
It still involves the person explaining that they don't believe in the supernatural though (i.e. God, etc) But I guess they might like being part of a group that gets to have a capital letter again. (like Christians and Moslems do... I think atheists are lowercase) And of course the uplighting and illuminating aspects of the term.

What if the term was something that *you* felt embarassed with? e.g. say the term was "Fairy" or "Demigod"... say some naturalists were promoting this term, and some newspapers published their writings... and some naturalists supported it while most of them didn't. Would you stifle the movement or support it? Even failing to support the movement is kind of stifling it.

copernicus

I've heard this objection before, and it really puzzles me. Yes, it was started by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell--nobody that you or I knew. They came up with the name, the resources, and the energy to organize this. There were no name contests or focus groups or votes. Usually, that is how such things happen. Somebody does something. The movement stands or falls on the efforts of its organizers.

BTW, take a look at the Atheist Party web site. It is another such effort by an activist individual, James Mason. He did go around to atheist web sites asking about the idea. I think that the reception he got was quite a bit worse than the Brights have gotten. I, myself, thought it was a bad idea, and said so. Still, he put up his web site. I didn't join, and won't join, the Atheist Party. Nevertheless, I really admire James for his activism. That's how these things happen. Someone bothers to try something. He doesn't have the big names like Dawkins, Dennett, Penn and Teller, the Amazing Randi, and so on.

Nevertheless, it is never too late to go the other route--get buyoff of the community for a name that they chose. What you should do is gather some folks together, set up a web site, spend some time organizing the community, and pick a name. Set up a way to vote and tabulate those votes. Show the "Brights" how it ought to be done. Are you or any other critics going to do it? It would take a lot of energy, but you would be doing it right, according to your lights. There have been some threads started on various atheist boards to come up with new names, but they have not been going anywhere. I am suggesting that you start a serious alternative, not just a discussion thread somewhere.

I agree, and I agree with many other objections to the name. I cannot offer a better alternative at this time, nor do I have the influence or energy to do this kind of thing. On the other hand, if the name catches on, then its awkwardness will disappear as we get used to it.

I erred in calling them "Young Turks". Actually, the Bright Movement has the backing of quite a few establishment figures in atheist and humanist circles. These are people who have been politically active in the past and who see merit in pushing the current effort. The opposition is quite vocal in discussion groups, and it seems to be the majority of contributors (possibly a few hundred people). That doesn't mean that most people who could be called "Brights" are critics. I have heard that it has some support in colleges and schools from people who don't know or care about the rough ride it is getting in internet forums.

If I didn't buy the goals of the movement, I would treat it like I did the Atheist Party, by not joining it. Personally, I don't like the name Bright. It sounds pretentious, and it upsets people like you, whom I also respect. I understand your embarrassment. The name could be worse, but it is tolerable. What attracts me to the movement is more the people and the visibility associated with it. It attracts interest from mass media, which is an absolute necessity for this kind of thing. I see something to be gained by lending it a hand and nothing to be gained by kicking it in the shins. As I said, I respect you and most of the vocal opponents of the idea. Nevertheless, I think that someone has to do this kind of thing, and I don't see any viable alternatives.

excreationist

That is more or less my situation.

So eventually in the eyes of the public, the word will become a synonym for "metaphysical naturalist".... but lose its light-related meaning... That is kind of like "gay"... there initially would have been a lot of confusion since the word meant "happy"... but after a while it became a synonym for "homosexual"... and more or less lost its happiness related meaning (except homosexual happiness). For many young people, the word has become an insult (maybe I've said that before)... they say "that's so gay" or "you're gay". So the old negative opinions of homosexuality were transferred onto the new, seemingly positive word... (I'm just raving I guess)

I wonder how many supporters are in a similar situation to you... just supporting it because others do... you know I wrote to a couple people about this - only Clark Adams(?) replied.... I guess I'll stop kicking it in the shins. After all, I should be doing other things.

ex-xian

I like the idea, but I think name just sounds stupid.

I like the idea b/c I could just say that I'm a [whatever] instead of going through the whole explanation:

No, I'm not a xian.
Yes, I believe in god.
No, I don't believe god intervenes in the universe.
Yes, I believe in materialism.
No, I'm not an atheist.
Yes, I believe in morality.
No, I don't believe in the supernatural.
Actually, I'm a fideist and a panentheist.
No, I didn't make those up.

See? It'd be much easier just say, "I'm a [whatever]."

But "bright" just sounds lame.

copernicus

Give it time, ex-xian. Word usages are acquired tastes.