openeyes

It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

viscousmemories

Okay, fair enough. So my criticism should have been that he feels he can make broad generalizations about the nature of all people who hold to a naturalistic worldview. In my opinion, that's not much better than my original accusation.
I consider Dawkins, James Randi, and Michael Shermer to be excellent examples of the fact that even brilliant and well-meaning skeptics can be victims of a fad. Of course the very real possibility exists that I am the dupe, and that they, in their superior wisdom, are right on about the benefits of this new meme. That's why after I e-mailed each of them to ask if they really believe in this idea, and each of them (though in Dawkins case, through an assistant) responded that they did indeed, I invited them to come add their voices to the debate on this thread. So far, to my knowledge, they have not done that. Yes, they're very busy men I'm sure. But it still seems to me that they've already made up their minds on this issue and they aren't interested in debating it. As far as I can tell, from thoroughly perusing the Brights(tm) website, a couple of people made up a new word and (presumably) used their association with some famous skeptics to give the weight of authority to their idea. Call me a skeptic, but I simply require a little more convincing than the argument from authority.
You still can call yourself a Humanist and/or a Materialist. As the Bright(tm) devotees have made quite clear, the word Bright(tm) is only intended to replace "Naturalist". Oh sure, they don't phrase it exactly that way, but let's look at the definition of a Bright(tm) from their website: "The noun, Bright, refers to a person whose worldview is naturalistic--free of supernatural and mystical elements. A Bright's ethics and actions are based on a naturalistic worldview." Based on that, in what way is a Bright(tm) different from a Naturalist?
What about "metaphysical naturalist" as a term for a metaphysical naturalist? And if that's too hard for some people to get their lips around, how about we shorten it to "Naturalist"? In fact, why not try the Bright(tm) movement's own propoganda to endorse the idea. Just go to their website, and in your mind, replace the word "Bright(tm)" with "Naturalist". I think you'll find that they make an excellent case for using that word instead.

The problem I have with the idea is, as I've said, I really don't agree that there is a need for a newer, shorter, catchier umbrella term for Naturalists. Particularly one as ill-conceived as Bright(tm). The problem the Brights(tm) would have with it is that your word is negative. If you go read their propaganda (and/or Dawkin's article) you'll see that bad, bad words that start with "a" and "un" and "in" make them all jittery. They believe that the new umbrella term that we absolutely must have to describe all Naturalists, while avoiding the horrible stigma supposedly attached to that word, must be a happy, glowing, positive and cheerful word. To wit: Bright(tm).

vm

Mediancat

It is not necessary for ME, and it is not necessary for many other people; and I will not voluntarily take on a categorization that I find pointless. I am not a bright; I am not a "reasoner." I am an atheist and a skeptic. And if you wish to give reasoner a try, fine; but don't expect me to use the term.

Rob aka Mediancat

ashe

Aren't you getting a little too threatened by all this?

You can call yourself whatever you want. I never suggested otherwise.

PopeInTheWoods

Assuming for a moment that "Bright" becomes a common identifier, a la "Gay", what would be the term for a non-Bright? The natural choice would be a "Dim" or "Dark", but insulting the opposition would probably be counter-productive. After all, "Straight" is itself a positive-sounding word. That rules out "Godbot" and "Sheep", among others. How about referring to non-Brights as "Supers" (short for supernatural)? That sounds at least as positive as "Straights".

We were both raised Catholic, but now I'm a bright and he's still a super.

Andy

PopeInTheWoods

My previous post about "Supers" was in response to the assertion that using "Bright" would antagonize believers by implying that they're not intellectually bright, and that therefore the whole "Bright" idea should be tossed. But nobody today accuses homosexuals of believing that "non-gay" people are actually "sad". "Bright or Super" seems as non-judgmental as "Gay or Straight".

There may well be good reasons not to identify as "Brights", but risking insult to supernaturalists shouldn't be one of them.

Andy

Melange_Thief

I don't like the term Bright, because it just sounds... ugh. I would rather be called a freethinker, or a reasoner, or an infidel (that does have a ring to it...).

But, we could be the Cogitos (beause we critically thought about our beliefs - cogito=I think). Or the Iacios (because we threw out the idea of a god - iacio=I throw). Or the Nondei (non=not. dei=m. nominative plural form of god).

Or maybe Newspeakers. Everyone say it with me: "The Oldspeakers are ungood!"

Shake

From Dennett's column (linked to in Toto's post above):Many teens and young adults may eat this up due to usual insecurities of that age and the need to belong or feel a part of something. I'm not saying all teens, of course, since we have some younger folks here who have outright rejected the "Bright" idea (ha ha!) either as being silly sounding or something that they don't need to feel a part of.

Toto

The NYTimes published some responses (pro and con):

In this corner, the Nonbelievers

viscousmemories

Sorry to resurrect your demon, Shake, but since I participated a lot in this thread I feel compelled to share this article criticising the Bright(tm) movement with anyone who might still be subscribed to it.

vm