Celsus

[off topic]
Out of curiosity, has Dennett ever been known to disagree with Dawkins on anything?
[/off topic]

Joel

Secular Pinoy

[off topic]
That's a pretty good question. It does seem that way. I don't really know if Dennett disagrees with Dawkins. He's a Philosopher of Mind, what's his assessment of memes? Also, I have been entertaining thoughts recently that if we analyse Dennett's concept of "greedy reductionism," it would probably apply to Dawkins' Extended Phenotype, though I may have to reread DDI and TEP to find out.
[/off topic]

JGL53

It's not a matter of political correctness verses political incorrectness at all. Uh, do you really consider the label 'Sane" to be politically correct, as opposed to "Bright"?

It's just that I agree with the other posters here -

Gunner: '...ridiculous term.'

Farrern: '...astetic clumsiness, negative (to others) connotation, and lack of necessity', 'a geek name'

kwigibo: '...gratuitious, sophamoric, narcissistic nomenclature.'

Kevbo: '... just made me cringe like I was being struck with a bat every time my eyes came across it.'

Ya see a pattern here? The term 'Bright' blows - like a mighty wind.

Shake

Please, someone shoot this thread.

I now suspect, after reading the op of this thread, that Bright(s) is already catching on, and there is little we'll be able to do about it, other than not refer to ourselves that way. I consider myself both an atheist and a humanist. I have a naturalistic worldview, so I guess Dennett, Dawkins, etc., would label me a Bright, but I'll just call myself an atheist, thanks.

Bluenose

Sorry Shake but that link does not work...

Rusting Car Bumper

Someone in another thread on this topic said something like...

"If you want better PR, be better people."

That's it in a nutshell. It's not a nomenclature problem. It's because when non-believers get together they traditionally have not been concentrating on the right problems.

DC

enemigo

By attaching the word "Bright" to people who are atheists, naturalists, etc..., the word "Bright" will attain the same negative connotations, to many, that are often associated with "Atheist" or "Infidel." If someone has a negative view of the beliefs that the word is supposed to describe, you can count on that person to treat the new word with equal contempt. Combine that with the condescending implication that theists aren't "bright" (intentional or not, it will be percieved that way), and you've got a recipe for even more animosity towards us. They will see us as Smart-asses indirectly calling them Dumb-asses.

I know that the "Bright" supporters have good intentions, but I think this campaign is horrifically ill-conceived, and altogether unnecessary. Please, oh please make it stop.


richard

Bluenose

Oh well...

Buddrow_Wilson

To be honest, I would have more respect for a movement calling itself the "Brights" if it were purposely condescending. It strikes me as not very bright at all to expect this term will be taken any other way.

However, I don't really have any animosity towards or problems with this movement, and I wish them all the luck in the world...just don't expect me to be a dues-paying member.

Bluenose

Me either...