Sunday Sermonette: The Bright fight
Amanda and PZ discuss The Bright movement. Neither says anything inflammatory, but the endless secularist discussion about whether "Bright" is an appropriate appellation drives me nuts. I don't know why so many secularists keep harping on the suggestion. If you don't like the word, don't use it.
Here's the definition of a captial-"B" Bright from the group's official website.
- A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
- A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
- The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview
As I said in the comments at Pandagon, I really don't understand why people are still upset about the term "Bright." I mean, sure it's a slightly dopey brand name. Then again, people probably said the same thing when Peter's Xtian Church decided to brand itself as the Catholic Church. I mean, strictly speaking, the Catholic Church is only catholic in its own over-inflated view of itself. Still, the brand has thrived to the point where the term "Catholic" has outstripped "catholic" in most people's vocabularies.
Some people say that "Bright" is a offensive because it's put-down to religious believers. Frankly, I think some religious believers are just intellectually insecure. To say that we're Bright (or bright) shouldn't threaten anyone else. When you've got people like Thomas Aquinas, Pascal, and Gandhi on your side, do you really have to begrudge the atheists a little pun that evokes the values of The Enlightenment?
I don't self-identify as a Bright. Good old "atheist" is good enough for me. However, I don't understand why fellow secularists are still rehashing this debate, years after the original essay.
So, yeah, people who are uptight about the word "Bright" can bite me.