copernicus

Principia, that is how the Bright movement will be taken by fundamentalists and anti-evolutionists, for whom Dawkins was the anti-christ before he even signed on to the idea. It should surprise no one that they react to the idea in that way. Consider the source.

I am more concerned by how the movement is taken by those who might use it as a rallying point for nontheist unity. If the sentiment expressed by the majority of posts on Internet Infidels is any indication, not well. I would rather that people declared agreement with the goals and principles of the Brights but just rejected the label. Many have. Surprisingly, some still seem willing to lend a hand to the atheist-baiters with ad hominems and ridicule directed at those who try to promote Brightism.

Principia

Yes, and consider that fundamentalists and anti-evolutionists constitute a majority opinion... That is the only reason why I cited ARNies in this thread.

copernicus, a common, coherent, reasonable, logical worldview is the means to nontheist unity. Not the other way around. Atheists/non-theists ought to strive for the former (EDIT: not by merely juxtaposing itself against theism and emphasizing the contrast). Consequently, in the case of the Brights, deliberately antagonizing theists is, frankly, a stupid PR move -- this is what the ARN threads demonstrate. To replace religion with some poorly thought out secularism is the overt purpose of Brights in their views. The fundies (uh, not "nonbrighties") set up Dawkins as an official spokesperson for atheism, whose intolerance of religions and the religioius is almost comic relief.

Look, unless all "Brights" (and all others under the Bright umbrella)recognize Dawkins and Dennet as their official spokemen, then it behooves us to criticize extremists (of whatever form). We in the E/C debate often expect as much of Christians who are anti-"anti-evolutionists." To suggest that we might appear weak because we cannot afford to criticize those of us who share similar worldviews is to appear desperate. If we don't do it, then the theist majority will. How can that be a better thing?

EDIT: to clear the cogwebs this morning

copernicus

The only way I can respond is to say that this is blatantly false. They are a very vocal minority, though. Perhaps you have spent too much time with ARN debaters, if you think that they constitute the majority opinion.

I am a bit stunned by your description of the Brights, which seems the complete opposite of what you find on their web site. The name may be pretentious, but they go to great lengths to counter that impression and the impression that it is insulting. Moreover, the fundamentalists are going to be antagonized by any expression of religious skepticism. Some will go to any lengths to ridicule and caricature us. Do you think that suppressing the Bright movement will improve our image with them?

It can be a better thing because the unfair criticism will be coming from the right place. Why spend so much energy in attacking people whose tactics you disagree with? Can't you just say "thanks for the effort, but I won't defend your tactics"? Why go on the attack? If you think that membership in the Brights requires you to swear allegiance to Dawkins or Dennett, then you are sorely mistaken. It is true that joining a group gets you associated with people who sometimes misrepresent your views. However, no group or movement would be possible without some tolerance for diversity. The Brights were explicitly set up as a coalition of diverse naturalist viewpoints. The only thing that unites them is a belief in the sufficiency of natural explanations. If you are not happy with that level of diversity, then that is your business. I would only ask that you refrain from investing time and energy in unfair criticism of the Brights. Religious extremists and bigots don't need your help in that department. Agreeing with their attempts to distort the movement is not helpful to anyone but the intolerant.

Principia

Umm... Perhaps you should spend more time in the E/C debates, copernicus. Since I joined II over a year ago, bills to suppress or to corrupt the teaching of evolution have popped up in a dozen states: Georgia, Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, Minnesota, Michigan, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Alabama, and South Carolina: http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?branch=current While I grant that most of these have not succeeded, the fact is that anti-evolutionism is evolving, and there is a renewed charge to continue this trend.

This is not to mention that almost half of Americans believe in Creationism, with some good percentage of the half that do not believing in some sort of evolutionary theory in which God intervened. Not only that, a majority of them believe strongly that Creation stories should be taught right along with evolution in public schools. Here are some citations from a 1999 Gallup poll that found 44% believes in a young-earth, and 68% favor teaching Creationism right along with evolution:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_Poll
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scien...ews990816.html
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/new..._1_28_2003.asp

So when Dawkins and Dennett, leading Brights, insinuate that people who willfully oppose evolutionary theory are "ignorant, stupid, or insance (or wicked, ...)" I guess they're just characterizing the unimportant half.

Then there are the "fundies" -- we can quibble about just what it means to be one. But, we can probably agree that Biblical inerrancy is a component. From http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PageCat...p?CategoryID=7 , we learn that "61% of all adults agree that “the Bible is totally accurate in all of its teachings (42% agree strongly, 19% agree somewhat) (2002) This represents an increase from 1991 where 35% agreed strongly and 25% agreed somewhat." And this is the Bible that teaches salvation is only through the Christian God.

OK. Let's suppose you're right. After all, polls can be wrong. So, I'm biased from my experiences with too many Internet lunatics. The fact remains that atheism is often promoted as an anti-Christian worldview. Just look at the forums here at II -- how many threads, how many topics are devoted towards discussions of Christian belief systems? That the Brights do nothing to discourage this PR seems to be the issue here.

Really... I was unaware I was describing Brights in any particular fashion. I thought I was presenting my impressions of how theists viewed the Brights, judging at least from the ARN threads. But, fine, let's take the discussion in that direction. So I shall describe some Brights then. In fact, I'll do it by letting them speak for themselves.

From the webpage you posted which has on its front page a Dawkins' article which promotes the following Bright idea:
Or let's consider when Dennett suggests:
Look. I may appreciate that some Brights do not have an anti-religious agendae. But there is an overt political motivation here. In fact, it says it right there in the web-page: "Currently the naturalistic worldview is insufficiently expressed within most cultures. The purpose of this movement is to form an umbrella Internet constituency of Brights having social and political recognition and power." So Brights want social and political power to do what exactly? Make it so that people cringe when children are labeled by their religion? Make it so that people don't trust God to save humanity from its follies?

So when someone who is not Bright reads that the leading Brights are vocal anti-religionists, and connects the dots... I cannot blame him for becoming suspicious and irritated. This goes back to the juxtaposition of atheism and other manners of being Bright as inherently anti-religious. Hell, it is even right there in how the Brights define themselves: A Bright is an individual whose worldview is naturalistic (free from supernatural and mystical elements). The juxtaposition is antagonistic -- what does it mean to be "free" from supernatural elements? Is the supernatural so ... um oppressive?

copernicus, I have not attacked anyone -- at least not in the sense of what I call an attack. My first post was about ARN. My second about my reservations of Bright PR tactics. And this my third, to defend myself from your accusations. Do I have an interest in seeing some Bright future? Sure. Do I care so deeply about extremeists so as to destroy atheist extremists for their sake? No. But you seem to present a false dilemma to me. Why do you have such concerns that any criticism of Brights might end up helping the "opposition?" The fact of the matter is that they will do it without my help, as the ARN threads demonstrate. Criticism does not mean "suppression," copernicus. I make no efforts to suppress Brights.

As a point of fact, I have at least one constructive criticism -- lose the anti-religious overtones. My opinion is that PR from an underdog perspective (and yes, Dennett is most surely over-exaggerating the prominence of Brights) needs a more subtle approach and to antagonize the theist majority is surely unwise. Naturalism is a rich philosophy without all of the emotional and unintellectual undercurrents surrounding it. Let's promote naturalism for the sake of its philosophy. That's the reason I would do it.

The Other Michael

The unbearable Brightness of being.

No, that just doesn't sing.

Back to the drawing board.

cheers,
Michael

phaedrus

I still dont get it....you dont like the term or the connotation...then ignore the movement...tell people you are not a bright and brights (or as copernicus says brigthism) dont represent you. Why go on and on about it?

Lets just see what happens on the ground...if the movement doesnt take off...so be it. Atleast dennett & co tried to do something about the political class ignoring their needs and rights and bringing out people out of the closet, instead of just going on with their lives. (however half-assed you think the strategy was)

jp

Viti

Phaedrus, they claim to speak for us. This is the largest website on the 'Net for naturalists, yet not one of the Bright people has come here to gather opinions or support.

Who makes up this constituency if not us?

phaedrus

Am sure that the reason for all this discussion is not just - that the folks who organised the movement didnt come to secweb and ask for opinions or support. (??)

You can always say - i am a naturalist, but not a "bright", which i think is a bad idea. In any case, like i said (if) you dont like the term or the connotation...then ignore the movement...tell people you are not a bright and brights (or as copernicus says brigthism) dont represent you

jp

Ronin

Bright or 'Brightism' doesn't represent me and it is a ridiculous and utterly superfluous concept/movement.

As a skeptic, it is incumbent upon me to weigh the pros and cons of exactly these sorts of issues and address them forthrightly.

An appeal to some potential future benefit based upon the power of yet another alias for atheist/naturalist/humanist has been taken into consideration and I remain dubious.

You want a movement that will be important to atheists, naturalists and humanists...get out there and volunteer, clean up your community and/or otherwise proactively contribute to the betterment of the human condition.

Brighten someone's day in real terms...for goodness sake.

JGL53

Bright....my ass.