Really? You don’t think perception of those groups has changed at all?
Options for terms for people with a naturalist worldview (taken from this thread), and some problems with these options:
[ul]
[li]Agnostic- suggests a state of indecision. Even if I cannot be certain that there is no God, though, I may be as sure of that as I am of just about anything else. It would be misleading to call myself an agnostic about God unless I wanted to say that I was an agnostic about almost every question of any importance.[/li]
[li]Atheist- has negative baggage, sounds like a denial of something that many people view as a central part of their lives & the world & morality[/li]
[li]Bright- sounds condescending and judgmental, already has many other uses, sounds somewhat mystical (which is counter to its meaning)[/li]
[li]Freethinker- suggests the absence of any kind of system, which may be not describe some people with a naturalist world view[/li]
[li]Godless heathen- a negative term, far more extreme than atheist.[/li]
[li]Heretic, Infidel, Blashphemer (used ironically as gays did with queer)- Confrontational, and therefore somewhat inappropriate for the apathetic agnostic crowd (“I don’t think there’s a god and I don’t think that it’s really important”). Their use may make religious believers think that atheists tend to confrontationally react against them, so this might make them fail to realize that many atheists are more apathetic about it. At this time, these could only be useful for group members to refer to like-minded group members or to confront others as part of a larger movement. Not likely to gain wider currency without a much broader movement that may or may not be desirable.[/li]
[li]Humanist- reflects a concern with humanity, human welfare, or the humanities. Refers more to moral or aesthetic concerns than to epistemological concerns. Some people with a religious or supernatural worldview may also be humanists, so it is only a useful term when it is not necessary to make an explicit distinction from supernaturalist worldviews. May be an acceptable term in some cases for some people with a naturalist worldview.[/li]
[li]Materialist- Term may also be used to refer to someone who likes material comforts, consumerism. Also, materialism is often associated with a crude and reductionist doctrine that tries to base everything on physics or economics while neglecting the importance of ideas and such higher-order properties of the natural world. [/li]
[li]Naturalist- The term used in the definition of bright by Dawkins, Dennett, Randi, etc. Suggests a leading role for nature & an interest in nature that may not be accurate for everyone with a naturalist worldview. Possible associations with tree-huggers and naturists (who like to go naked). Somewhat philosophical and not all that catchy. It’s not obvious how a worldview (especially a moral or aesthetic one) is based on nature (see the naturalistic fallacy), and this term makes that salient. For some reason, it seems less satisfying to define a naturalist as “a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view” than it is to define an unknown term such as a bright as “a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view.” Nonetheless, I think this may often be the best term for people with a naturalist (as opposed to supernaturalist) worldview.[/li]
[li]Nonbeliever- Although less harsh-sounding than atheist, this term is condescending towards nonbelievers. It defines them in terms of their opposite and suggests that they are lacking something that people should have. Also, people with naturalist worldviews can have plenty of beliefs – just not the religious ones that this term suggests to be normative.[/li]
[li]Non-theist- shares many of the problems of atheist and nonbeliever, although not as starkly. Also, it is an uncommon term.[/li]
[li]Rationalist- Suggests that others are irrational. Refers more to epistemological concerns than to moral or aesthetic concerns. Also, what is rationality? That’s a controversial question. Some hold that rationality is an ability to find means to given ends, while true wisdom of the natural world would involves a wise choice of ends as well. May be an acceptable term in some cases for some people with a naturalist worldview.[/li]
[li]Secular humanist- too academic sounding, and therefore not meaningful for the average person and not catchy. See also: humanist.[/li]
[li]Skeptic- describing oneself as “doubting” may be misleading in the same way that agnostic is misleading. Also, it is possible to be a skeptic of many things, and some religious believers may be skeptics in some ways.[/li][/ul]
I’m sure I’m not the first one to come up with it. Go right ahead.
“Bright” would have the opposite effect intended on a lot of fervent believers of many stripes; I’ve known a fair number of people who would be insulted by the implication that they’re not so bright in comparison to the “brights.” Since atheists are after all human, some come equipped with oversize egos, and are as annoying about their beliefs or lack of such as some sorts of religious folks are about theirs.
Changing the terms for these things has always struck me as silly; in a similar vein, I have no problem with “handicapped” or “disabled” as opposed to “crippled,” but I want to bitch-slap people who propose silly terms like “handicapable.” It all means the same damn thing in the end.
I’m somewhere between agnostic and pantheist…more or less a walking question mark. Works for me, at least for now.
I immediately thought of this parallel, but I think that the difference is that “brights” are already precieved (and not necessarily unfairly!) as thinking that they’re “brighter” than religionists and non-skeptics.
I don’t think there was ever a widespread feeling within the homosexual community that those poor, pitiful heterosexuals are sadder than homosexuals, so “gay” isn’t really a condescdending term to choose in that context.
And I don’t know that the Native American vs. native-born American parallel flies, because “native” is a widely-used term used for indigenous peoples, not a word pulled out of the air like “bright.”
After I posted I got more information, which is pretty typical of me, if not very efficient. Anyway, it seems Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, the co-directors of the Brights Movement, foresaw many of the objections. I should also note that Geisert and Futrell should be given credit for coining the term. Dawkins and Randi (among other notables including two Nobel laureates) are proponents.
Geisert and Futrell have some suggestions for using the term Bright. It should only be a noun, they insist. Used correctly it has no antonym, just as there is no antonym for Brazilian, to borrow their example. People who advocate the use of the term need to practice using it in order to avoid
I misused the term in my earlier post. I guess I’m still a Bright newbie… er, newbie Bright.
The immediate goal seems to be to get those who already have the naturalistic worldview to accept the term. Since the SDMB has a good many rationalists, atheists, materialists, and agnostics, I have hopes that it will be a vector for spreading the idea. Only time will tell if it is a meme or not.
The website is definitely worth a look. Monday, September 22 is International Brights Meetup Day with meets in potentially as many as 591 cities.
This idea excites me. It’s something I’ve wanted for a long time without knowing I wanted it. It also has the appeal of novelty and I’m very optimistic about its potential. If it fizzles, well, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Good luck with that one. Honestly, I don’t object to the idea of “rebranding” atheism, skepticism and whatever other anti-irrational ism they want to lump into the category of “bright.” But it’s just naive – and bad marketing strategy – to think that they get to dodge (or can circumvent) all of the legitimate concerns about the “I’m smarter than you” connotations of the word by suggesting that it only be used as a noun.
It’s not only going to be used as a noun. “Queer” is not only a noun. “Gay” is not only a noun. The words they’re trying to encompass – atheist, skeptic, rational – aren’t exclusively nouns (or even nouns at all). People who’ve read their page are already using bright as an adjective – because the word is an adjective! Introducing new words into the language isn’t some kind of controlled experiment, and you don’t get to dictate usage (unless you trademark the thing, and that would seem to defeat the purpose).
When I first heard about the Bright movement – before this thread – my responses were, that’s not a terrible idea, but the idea of calling myself a “bright” makes my skin crawl. That doesn’t seem to have been an unusual response. I’ll be surprised, even if the word catches on, if I ever voluntarily call myself a bright.
And I’m the target audience.
The quote posted just underscores for me the disengenuity of it, which is what I object to and which I’ve already pointed out – “I’m not saying I’m bright, I’m saying I’m a bright, which is totally different!” Makes me want to roll my eyes. In fact, here -----> :rolleyes:
I think it’s wishful thinking to say it will only be construed as arrogance “until it takes hold in the mainstream community,” This mindset totally overlooks the fact that it is precisely because it sounds arrogant that it is unlikely to ever take hold in the mainstream community. Which, frankly, doesn’t strike me as being very Bright.
Well, there’s a big difference between usage of gay and usage of bright. Didn’t gay, meaning homosexual, start out in the 1800s as a tongue in cheek euphanism, an in-joke of sorts? The word evolved naturally with the language. It’s unfair to compare gay to bright, a word that has been deliberately ‘coined’ in spite of its usual connotations.
“Verbing weirds language.”
Ironikinit, so far the sample of Dopers in this thread seems to bide a less than hopeful future for having the SDMB aid in the propagation of “a Bright”.
Side note:
I’d be happy to see a wide use of “Humanist” for now. But, you say, “humanist” may include people with some religious beliefs! I say, so? Is the objection one to the very existence of religious or spiritual beliefs themselves, as a malum per se, or to religion and spirituality WHEN they interfere with knowledge and relegate human welfare to insignificance? If the latter, then there should be no offense in having an atheist and a forward-thinking Unitarian/Quaker/Buddhist under the same category.
Pick your battles, pick your battles. “Brights” is just confrontational.
And BTW, IMO the improvements in civil rights over the last 50 years are not the result of changing the words used to describe people. A raised awareness of the rights of others led to the change in the words used to describe specific groups. “BlacK” and later “African American” replaced “Negro” well AFTER the Civil Rights movement got on its way.
Sure “bright” is arrogant (and foolish), but it pales next to those who call themselves “saved” or “God’s chosen people.”
So what? Are you saying people who favor bright should insist on their rights to sound arrogant and pretentious?
It would be helpful if contributors to this thread concisely identified their worldview and location. At this point, the Bright Movement is greatly concerned with contacting and counting those who are free from belief in the supernatural, particularly Americans. Reactions from these people would be of greatest interest. This is not to say that the views of others are in any way without value. I myself reside in Australia and I am a Bright. I plan to attend the International Bright Meetup in Brisbane on Monday 22 September (I voted for Dooley’s, by the way). All who are interested should check if there is a meet in their town. Thank you.
Location seems to be the most important factor in the perception of status. In London, certainly, I know many, many more athiests than religious people - and many of those athiests think that people who believe in God are all irrational idiots, whereas /they/ are the light and truth of the world.
Which is a bit depressing for me (Christian) and hopefully for a lot of athiests as well. Faith, lack of faith, colour or wealth are no protection from stupidity or arrogance, alas.
I find it interesting to note that the one athiest in this thread to come out strongly in favour of the term ‘Bright’ is also the one providing a cite claiming that religious people tend to have a lower IQ than athiests. Hmm.
When I was an athiest, which I was for many years, I always prefered to call myself a ‘heathen’ - which at the very least informed my religious and non-religous friends that I had a sense of humour about the whole thing.
Maybe I should call myself a crazed zealot these days, or would people take me at my word? =)
1a, I would imagine, and perhaps 1c depending on what side of the fence you’re on. (This only goes for “strong” athiests, of course.)
I see no reason why the fact that Brights are on average more intelligent than those with a religious affiliation should be held against us. The media bandies about the fact that gays tend to make more money than heterosexuals often enough.
I find it odd that people are fixated on the one definition of bright, meaning intelligent. Although Super Gnat did allude to another definition (“light-skinned”, apparently, which is a new one on me) everyone else has only mentioned the smarty-pants angle. Over at dictionary.com, out of the seven different meanings of bright, “Animatedly clever; intelligent” comes sixth. I was under the impression that the more common uses come first. That all of the meanings are positive is a good thing. It beats calling ourselves the Jerks or the Sleazies or something. Until lexicographers add the noun form of bright to dictionaries the only official definition is the one at http://www.the-brights.net/ .
Brights include humanists but humans are not automatically a Bright’s focus. Someone whose main interest is astronomy or microbiology and is free from superstition is also a Bright. Brights include rationalists but also includes those who believe experience is a better teacher than reason.
There is no compunction for Brights to call themselves Brights. Brights may prefer to be called an atheist or agnostic or any of the terms we’ve discussed. Many of the people who have signed up to be recognised as Brights have clearly stated that they dislike the term. Even so, they apparently recognise the utility of the neologism and the value of being counted among those who share one of their most basic values. According to the latest information, thousands of Brights have registered and there are known Brights in 74 countries.
All of the other terms we’ve discussed were new at some time. Somebody must’ve coined the word atheist sometime. Ditto for humanist, agnostic, etc., etc.
It’s up to Brights to learn to use the word correctly. I learnt to easily enough, although it wouldn’t surprise me if I messed it up once in a while.
There’s nothing wrong with planning.
The problem with all the other terms is that none of them are defined as “having a naturalistic worldview”. I found a site where there’s a vote with other proposals for the term. Looking over the list (which includes such hopeful memes as Anaxagorians, Evolvers, Thinkstirrers, and Worlders) I can only conclude that coming up with a neologism isn’t easy.
Lucky for me, this forum allows witnessing, so I can talk about how my consciousness has been raised by the Brights Movement. Just yesterday, I read an email from my sister, who’s a wonderful person. It was a forward about Columbine, and consists mostly of a short speech by Darnel Scott, whose daughter died at Columbine. His conclusion was that it was a lack of school prayer and an insufficient recognition of God as the sole foundation of the United States that killed his daughter. Atheism killed her is what he was saying, although he did not use the term atheist. You can read the text for yourself.
Now imagine that he’d said Jews killed his daughter. Or Catholics, or even gays. Would my sister, a solid member of the American upper middle class, have forwarded that email? I don’t think she would have ever received it, because most Americans accept that it is hateful to blame Jews, Catholics, or gays for disasters.
My two main conclusions after reading it were:
People with a naturalistic worldview are demonised in the United States.
I’ve been in the closet too long.
I’m in the closet and I didn’t even realise it. I quit going to church while still in my teens, after I became an atheist. My wedding was a civil ceremony without mention of the supernatural. I thought people who are close to me just knew that I am a materialist. However, out of respect for my family’s feelings and fear of causing fights, I never made it clear that I was an atheist and that I might be offended by having my worldview blamed for a massacre.
Even worse, I didn’t realise how offencive ideas like these are. I was just accustomed to people like Jerry Falwell blaming “the secular” for the World Trade Center attack. Desensitised to opinion pieces with titles like “Atheists have too much power in this country” (Souix City Journal September 7, 2003), I didn’t notice that no credible publication would single out worldviews like Hinduism or Judaism as having too much power but Brights were fair game.
Thanks to the Brights Movement, I thought about how people with my views are perceived and I’ve started to educate myself. I didn’t even know that there was a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity until this week.
American Brights in particular need to insist that a naturalistic worldview gets the same respect as any other.
Did you know:
In a survey published in the early 1980s, 71% of Americans thought that atheists speaking against religion should not be permitted use of civic auditoriums.
In the same survey, only 26% agreed that atheists should have the right to make fun of the religious no matter who was offended.
According to a 1999 survey by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) the anti-religious bias in media some theists see is simply not there. Quite the contrary: “Religion is one of the favourite cover subjects of Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report.” In a 1997 Time cover story titled “Does Heaven Exist?” not a single source said no.
The backlash is already beginning. Beliefnet, Inc. has issued two pieces critical of the Brights Movement. You can see one by Beliefnet co-founder Steven Waldman and the Brights’ response for yourself. I did a Google search for “naturalistic worldview” and this article, which attempts to smear evolutionists as UFO nuts was the second highest result. Just as the term “secular humanist” was used as a weapon by those who would demonise materialists, so will “naturalistic worldview” and “Bright” if they are allowed.
I’m finding it mildly ironic that a self-nominated spokesperson for rationalism is giving in to evangelist impulses.
IRONIKINIT –
With all due respect, it will be held against you because it makes you sound like just the sort of arrogant schmo who would call himself a Bright.
I don’t connote bright with “light-skinned” normally. That reaction came from one line (well, two lines) in the original article:
My first response to that was “Dark?! What?!?” If that bit had not been included in the article, it never would have occurred to me. (And at any rate, I don’t think it’s that relevent to the entire debate; I was just offering my thoughts.)