phaedrus

Nice one by Daniel Dennett in NY Times......The Bright Stuff

-------------

The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What is a bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny — or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic — and life after death.

------------

You may well be a bright. If not, you certainly deal with brights daily. That's because we are all around you: we're doctors, nurses, police officers, schoolteachers, crossing guards and men and women serving in the military. We are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters. Our colleges and universities teem with brights. Among scientists, we are a commanding majority. Wanting to preserve and transmit a great culture, we even teach Sunday school and Hebrew classes. Many of the nation's clergy members are closet brights, I suspect. We are, in fact, the moral backbone of the nation: brights take their civic duties seriously precisely because they don't trust God to save humanity from its follies.

---------------

Whether we brights are a minority or, as I am inclined to believe, a silent majority, our deepest convictions are increasingly dismissed, belittled and condemned by those in power — by politicians who go out of their way to invoke God and to stand, self-righteously preening, on what they call "the side of the angels."

--------------

Most brights don't play the "aggressive atheist" role. We don't want to turn every conversation into a debate about religion, and we don't want to offend our friends and neighbors, and so we maintain a diplomatic silence.

But the price is political impotence. Politicians don't think they even have to pay us lip service, and leaders who wouldn't be caught dead making religious or ethnic slurs don't hesitate to disparage the "godless" among us.

-------------

But there's no reason all Americans can't support bright rights. I am neither gay nor African-American, but nobody can use a slur against blacks or homosexuals in my hearing and get away with it. Whatever your theology, you can firmly object when you hear family or friends sneer at atheists or agnostics or other godless folk.

And you can ask your political candidates these questions: Would you vote for an otherwise qualified candidate for public office who was a bright? Would you support a nominee for the Supreme Court who was a bright? Do you think brights should be allowed to be high school teachers? Or chiefs of police?

Let's get America's candidates thinking about how to respond to a swelling chorus of brights. With any luck, we'll soon hear some squirming politician trying to get off the hot seat with the feeble comment that "some of my best friends are brights."

-------------

kwigibo

Dawkins, now Dennet, endorsing gratuitous, sophmoric, narcissistic nomenclature.

why can't it be writers i don't like?

Farren

Its downright embarassing. Katherine Hepburn made no bones about being an athiest, pure and simple. In this day and age why do some people see a need to dress up well-established concepts in cute frills like a badly dressed barbie doll?

Apart from that there's the issue of historical confusion. Who wants future generations clouding the issue by arguing about whether x was a "bright" or a secular humanist?

Bill

I've received the "sales pitch" on this movement a couple of times now, and I think that you folks who are criticizing this usage are being a bit too parochial. While you (and Hepburn) may well be quite comfortable as an "out atheist," most people who are "brights" aren't even all that certain that they are atheists. (I have long self-categorized myself as an "agnostic" for reasons that I've explained on many occasions on these boards.)

My most-recent exposure to the "sales pitch" was at the Atheist Alliance, International convention last Easter. While there was (and will continue to be) some substantial grumbling, I believe that a majority of the assembled atheist leadership at that convention was quite receptive to jumping on this particular bandwagon.

We are all in the process of "test marketing" this term. Dennett himself seems to have succeeded and avoided giving offense to religious people (which has been my wife's main worry): With reactions like this, I'm beginning to become a "true believer" (tm) in the word "bright" used in this context.

== Bill

GunnerJ

OK, I'm with AquaVita: If this shit gets any further off the ground, I'm converting to Buddhism.

I'm not an "out atheist" with my family, mostly because the subject has never come up. If they asked what I believe, I'd tell them I am a humanist. If they ask if I believe in god, I'll say no. I wouldn't consider adopting a religious beard to avoid the negative opinions of Christians, but I will to avoid being tainted by this ridiculous term.

Kevbo

I'm sorry, the article had a nice sentiment and all, but his usage of "bright" just made me cringe like I was being struck with a bat every time my eyes came across it.

Bluenose

Worst of all...

bRight rhymes with Right :banghead:

We can do better

Would you want your little girl to marry a BRight Winger ?

Farren

Bill, my disagreement with the term is a consequence of its asthetic clumsiness, negative (to others) connotations, and lack of necessity. It is a disagreement with the term, not the spirit of the movement behind it.

In principle, I don't object to an organised political movement representing freethinkers, rationalists, secular humanists, athiests and similar systems of thought.

Applied and theoretical scientists are not generally renowned for thier asthetic sensibilities. While this is not always true, my personal observation is: the more scientifically adept the thinker, the clumsier their use of language and symbolism.

The fact that people such as Feynman are revered for the economy and elegance of their illustrations is precisely because of this general deficit in the community.

The most recent example I can think of is Penrose's "Shadows of the Mind" which I read last year. His arguments (which I don't entirely agree with) are fascinating and deep, but his construction of fictional accounts for gedanken experiments scream "GEEK!". They would be comfortable in any debut writer's contribution to "Amazing Tales", circa 1950.

The term "Bright" and the associated "marketing" material (provided on the website linked to on other threads) has the same awful quality. The spirit of the thing is admirable, but someone with a little artistic prowess and political eloquence should have been consulted before settling on a geek name.

That's the cringe factor all its detractors are fueled by. At least calling yourself "The Dorks" is humorous. Calling yourself something dorky and demonstrating ignorance of its dorkiness is just embarassing

I think I've gone off the OP a little, and will refrain from doing so again.

Speaking of which, can anyone summarise. I don't like sites that force me to register, free or not.

JGL53

Well, I like the idea of creating a new word that agnostics, strong and weak atheists, secular humanists, metaphysical naturalists, philosophical materialists, rationalists, free thinkers, etc. could agree to use as an umbrella type of designation.

However, I agree with several of the other posters that "Bright" sucks. It will be interpreted by the majority of those who are religionists/supernaturalists/paranormalists that we are implying that they are NOT so bright. Yet it's not a matter of I.Q., at least for most cases.

Heck, if you want to be accurate, and aren't concerned with insulting others, why not use the word "Sane"? Otherwise, we need to work on this some more to find a better umbrella term.

phaedrus

Umm...Political correctness....if dennett used "!@#!$@!%@" instead of "bright", the whole piece would have been more likeable?

He did attempt to dilute the connotation.....The term "bright" is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, Calif., who thought our social group — which has a history stretching back to the Enlightenment, if not before — could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help. Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: "I'm a bright" is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view.

You may well be a bright. If not, you certainly deal with brights daily. That's because we are all around you: we're doctors, nurses, police officers, schoolteachers, crossing guards and men and women serving in the military. We are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters. Our colleges and universities teem with brights. Among scientists, we are a commanding majority. Wanting to preserve and transmit a great culture, we even teach Sunday school and Hebrew classes. Many of the nation's clergy members are closet brights, I suspect. We are, in fact, the moral backbone of the nation: brights take their civic duties seriously precisely because they don't trust God to save humanity from its follies.

jp