I'm a Bright (the noun, not the adjective)

[Rick Munroe]

I just discovered that I'm in a mixed marriage (I am a Bright; Derek is not). The noun "Bright" is a new term that refers to a person whose worldview is naturalistic -- free of supernatural and mystical elements. Go to this website: http://the-brights.net/ and check the FAQ's for more info. I wonder how many Brights we have in the Message Center. I also wonder if I have to change my tag line to "just a dumb Bright."

[Guest Merlin]

I am not religious, but I think it is extremely arrogant and in bad taste for non religious persons to assume a name suggesting that they are more intelligent than those who have a different opinion. There are a lot of very stupid people among the athiests as well as the religious. I suspect a high percentage of the people in prison qualify as "brights".

[Rick Munroe]

>I am not religious, but I think it is extremely arrogant and

>in bad taste for non religious persons to assume a name

>suggesting that they are more intelligent than those who have

>a different opinion.

 

LOL Who are you, Emily Litella? :+ It has absolutely nothing to do with the adjective "bright" or with intelligence. Do you also think that when a person says he's gay that he means he is "characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement"? Did you even bother to look at that site before forming your opinion? That wasn't very br-- no, I won't say it. It's too easy.

[bigguyinpasadena]

I generally consider myself an agnostic.However,when recently confronted by the very real death of an elderly woman-partially in my care-all of the old catholic dogma of my youth came to the fore.Comforting for her,puzzling for me.

[+ Lucky]

What a bright idea! Not. Why do we need another label? I did go to the website, first, in case you wonder. I can't see any reason to tally the number of brights. But, whatever.

BTW, Rick, were your ears ringing about an hour ago? A couple of us were talking about you...very positively, don't worry!

[Rick Munroe]

>Why do we need another label? I did

>go to the website, first, in case you wonder. I can't see any

>reason to tally the number of brights. But, whatever.

 

From the site: In many societies in the world, potential Brights maintain a low profile regarding their worldview. All too many of them just don't mention their outlook to others, and hence the worldview of Brights is insufficiently expressed within a given culture.

 

There are lots of potential Brights, though, far more than seem to be there. (Sound familiar, my gay brethren? ;-) ) It continues: Society would benefit greatly from the full civic participation of these Brights. We hope to build a national constituency of individuals who see themselves as Brights (i.e., fitting the given definition of a Bright) and who will use the term to self-identify as occasions may present.

 

One purpose of getting this new word out there is: to gain "a place at the civic table" for the Brights, and a capacity to transmit to religionists, politicians, media, and society in general educational information on key topics that affect the interests not only of the Brights (e.g., discrimination, the separation of church and state), but the welfare of all the individuals of the nation and world.

 

 

>BTW, Rick, were your ears ringing about an hour ago? A couple

>of us were talking about you...very positively, don't worry!

 

My ears didn't ring but my ass got a little tickle in it -- which one of you was holding the feather?

[chrismac]

As defined and described on their website, I would consider myself among the "Brights".

 

I don't believe in mysticism, spirtuality, or that humans are any more "special" than other creatures; we've just evolved in a way that enables us to think we are.

 

Brights of the World Unite?

 

I didn't sign up though. I get enough spam as it is.

[woodlawn]

>It has absolutely nothing

>to do with the adjective "bright" or with intelligence. Do

>you also think that when a person says he's gay that he means

>he is "characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted

>excitement"?

 

No. But the purpose of language -- which is communication -- is not served when someone takes a word that has a common meaning in a given language and gives it another meaning that has no relation to the common meaning. Unless and until the new meaning becomes widely accepted by speakers of that language -- as "gay" has been -- the result is confusion, as this thread has just demonstrated.

[Guest sniper]

Well, there already was a word for it, but I guess they decided "atheist" sounded too off-putting.

I think the people who chose the word knew exactly what they were doing - it's disingenuous to claim there is no intention that the other connotations of the word be imputed to the members of the group. They come off as a bunch of Mensa-type egotists. I had my fill of them in college.

(Mind you, I find religious arrogant jerks just as annoying...)

[BewareofNick]

Why is it offensive from a non religious person? Conservative Christians have been doing it for years! Just ask pat Robertson.

[Rick Munroe]

>Unless and until the

>new meaning becomes widely accepted by speakers of that

>language -- as "gay" has been -- the result is confusion, as

>this thread has just demonstrated.

 

Right; that's one of the goals of that site -- to try to get the new meaning accepted & understood by the masses:

 

English is fine the way it is? Sorry, but we feel there is a clear need for a noun that "umbrellas" (note the verb usage?) over the naturalistic worldview folks. The term just had to be something easy to pronounce. It was desirable that it be "in tune" with the Enlightenment heritage and scientific values. To us, this term just plain ol' fits the bill.

 

Perhaps the noun Bright won't make it. We can certainly try, though, to introduce a term that we feel has important uses, not only for the Brights, but for society at large.

 

Language has always changed and will continue to change. We would like to see Bright as a commonly accepted affirmative noun with which to refer to persons whose worldview is naturalistic. There's no such word for that concept right now. We hope in twenty years, there will be.

[Rick Munroe]

>Well, there already was a word for it, but I guess they

>decided "atheist" sounded too off-putting.

 

That's not true. From that site: The Brights' umbrella is large, very large. For example, Brights can be agnostics, rationalists, skeptics, atheists, objectivists, igtheists, and so on. There are any of a number of self-identity labels they might apply to themselves. No label at all need apply...just plain "nonreligious" or "uninterested in religion" without any real consideration beyond that might be how a person is seeing himself/herself.

[Rick Munroe]

If anyone's interested, I just googled this informative op-ed column in the New York Times (from 2 days ago, by coincidence):http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/opinion/12DENN.html

 

Here it is, if you don't want to register at nytimes.com:

 

The Bright Stuff

By DANIEL C. DENNETT

 

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.

 

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.

 

As an adult white married male with financial security, I am not in the habit of considering myself a member of any minority in need of protection. If anybody is in the driver's seat, I've thought, it's people like me. But now I'm beginning to feel some heat, and although it's not uncomfortable yet, I've come to realize it's time to sound the alarm.

 

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."

 

A 2002 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life suggests that 27 million Americans are atheist or agnostic or have no religious preference. That figure may well be too low, since many nonbelievers are reluctant to admit that their religious observance is more a civic or social duty than a religious one — more a matter of protective coloration than conviction.

 

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.

 

From the White House down, bright-bashing is seen as a low-risk vote-getter. And, of course, the assault isn't only rhetorical: the Bush administration has advocated changes in government rules and policies to increase the role of religious organizations in daily life, a serious subversion of the Constitution. It is time to halt this erosion and to take a stand: the United States is not a religious state, it is a secular state that tolerates all religions and — yes — all manner of nonreligious ethical beliefs as well.

 

I recently took part in a conference in Seattle that brought together leading scientists, artists and authors to talk candidly and informally about their lives to a group of very smart high school students. Toward the end of my allotted 15 minutes, I tried a little experiment. I came out as a bright.

 

Now, my identity would come as no surprise to anybody with the slightest knowledge of my work. Nevertheless, the result was electrifying.

 

Many students came up to me afterwards to thank me, with considerable passion, for "liberating" them. I hadn't realized how lonely and insecure these thoughtful teenagers felt. They'd never heard a respected adult say, in an entirely matter of fact way, that he didn't believe in God. I had calmly broken a taboo and shown how easy it was.

 

In addition, many of the later speakers, including several Nobel laureates, were inspired to say that they, too, were brights. In each case the remark drew applause. Even more gratifying were the comments of adults and students alike who sought me out afterward to tell me that, while they themselves were not brights, they supported bright rights. And that is what we want most of all: to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less.

 

If you're a bright, what can you do? First, we can be a powerful force in American political life if we simply identify ourselves. (The founding brights maintain a Web site on which you can stand up and be counted.) I appreciate, however, that while coming out of the closet was easy for an academic like me — or for my colleague Richard Dawkins, who has issued a similar call in England — in some parts of the country admitting you're a bright could lead to social calamity. So please: no "outing."

 

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."

 

Daniel C. Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, is author, most recently, of "Freedom Evolves.''

[Guest VanBCGuy]

I guess I must be a dim.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>The Brights' umbrella is

>large, very large. For example, Brights can be agnostics,

>rationalists, skeptics, atheists, objectivists, igtheists, and

>so on.

 

What's an igtheist? And will they be willing to subordinate their identity (such as it is) to the Bright label?

[VaHawk]

Does this mean that you'll be signing off as "just a bright prostitute" now?

[Rick Munroe]

>What's an igtheist?

 

I have no idea. I thought you were supposed to be the smarter of the two of us, Slim...can't you do a search & find out? Actually, I did google it just now and I came across this blog: http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/004334.html ("Dean's World: Defending the liberal tradition in history, politics, science and philosophy") where they are having the same Bright arguments that occurred above (some complaining about the arrogance of the term, others supporting its new meaning). And more than one ask, "what the hell is an igtheist?" God only knows. ;-)

[Rick Munroe]

>Does this mean that you'll be signing off as "just a bright

>prostitute" now?

 

No, I think it means I'll go back to more popular posts about cocksucking and asseating. Live and learn.

[Rick Munroe]

> ("Dean's World: Defending the liberal tradition in history,

>politics, science and philosophy")

 

By the way, that isn't Howard Dean (see my post in the Politics forum below); it's just a coincidence.