Sunday Sermonette: The Bright fight

vagina-lightbright, originally uploaded by petree.

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.

Comments

[Republic of Palau]

Tell you what let's just use 'eloi' and 'morlock' instead. They're about as useful as descriptors as 'bright'.

Hey, they're just words, you don't have to use them.

[Constantine]

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.

All Christians should, technically, think of theirs as being the "catholic" faith. The term was first used by St. Ignatius in the early 2nd century to, I would assume, differentiate themselves from the Gnostics and the Jews. As an Orthodox Christian, the "official" name of my affiliation is supposedly the "Orthodox Catholic Church."

It wasn't that the Roman Catholic Church arrogantly appropriated the term, it was that various protestant sects mistakenly ran away from it, leaving the Roman Catholics as the "only game in town" when it came to identifying themselves as "[C/c]atholic."

Did anything come of using the term "Bright," or do people merely debate its appropriateness? I seem to remember it becoming coined in mid-2003, but the meme doesn't seem to have caught on.

[tweetbirdietweettweet386sx]

My problem with "Bright" is just that it just sounds dopey.

They probably should have made it into an acronym. Something like "Believing Reality Is Goodness Happiness Time" or something. That would have made it easier to sell to the general public because it would have been far, far, more clever.

[Dabodius]

"Isn't it kind of presumptuous to cast off the metaphysics you've been taught and try to figure stuff out for yourself?"

There is no presumption in accepting naturalism, but it need not be an exercise of autonomy. While it may include casting off whatever metaphysics one has been taught, it can't dispense with a metaphysics. If naturalism is more than a methodological commitment, defining the limits of a specialized inquiry (in evolutionary biology e.g. where the inference to the supernatural made by the culture warriors of "Intelligent Design" impersonating scientists makes a category mistake: biology as a natural science does not invoke anything non-natural), if naturalism is an ontological commitment, what else could it be but a metaphysics? How can "Only the sorts of things explained or asked about by the natural sciences are ultimately real" be justified without circularity?

An important non-Western antecedent of naturalism was Lokayata .

[Slurmy Spoo]

The term Bright bugs me a little bit too. After all, there's something to be said for modesty. I mean, imagine talking to someone about philosophy when they insist on calling themselves a "Smart," the implication about you being obvious. It's even lamer than people who advertise they're in Mensa.

I'm Canadian, and I get irked when I hear about how great Canadians are (mostly because of our beer or whatever). Be modest, and we all have less to filter out.

P.S. Would Stalin classify as a Bright? Secular humanist might be something to be proud of, but, naturalist? I dunno.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

>I'm Canadian, and I get irked when I hear about how great Canadians are (mostly because of our beer

Well modesty isn't applicable when speaking about measurable facts.

[Dr. Free-Ride]

It seems to me having a term that collects a bunch of people who are not united by a common dogma is a bit counterintuitive. As well, the range of "atheist" commitments really run the gamut from Certainty-There-Is-No-Nonmaterial-Stuff (including deity) to "nontheism", which means any appropriate label would be collecting a pretty motley assortment.

(Also, Coturnix, you know that in this country "naturist" is another label for "nudist", don't you?)

[greensmile]

I was put off by it when I first heard it used a month or two ago...we can do better. People who know better are only that and should not label themselves as if absolutely or intrinsically better.

Hardly a way to make friends for a cause, even if the cause is educated sanity.

[Damien]

I like Dawkins and Dennett a lot (esp. Dawkins), but my first thought when I heard of "Bright" was "uh-oh". Even though I thought it was an explicit reference to the Enlightenment. That said, I can see the appeal.

Tom Clark: you're the one behind http://naturalism.org aren't you? Cool site, nice essay. Unfortunately the sentence "I'm a naturalist" doesn't automatically convey what's wanted, either.

Yeah, the Lokayata/Carvaka are cool. 300 years before Epicurus, and with rather similar ideas (no atoms, but also no fig-leaf gods; also allegedly more explicitly feminist.) That's ancient Eastern wisdom I can get behind.

[Gray Lensman]

Dr Free-Ride got it right. Atheists represent the very opposite of any organized group, much less one that needs a bogus name. If "we" need a name, maybe "we" are trying to evangelize theists. Besides, I wouldn't belong to any group that would have me. (Thanks, Groucho)

The 11th commandment; keep thy religion to thyself. (Thanks, George)

[T. H. Huxley]

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain “gnosis” -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. ...

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, “Try all things, hold fast by that which is good”; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

[Julian Elson]

Well, I'm far too much of an old-fashioned empiricist to claim that my ethics and actions are based on a naturalistic worldview, and I'm not entirely convinced that such a thing is even possible, but I must say that I do like your new picture. Your shoulders radiate confidence!

[DJA]

Well modesty isn't applicable when speaking about measurable facts.

Well, I hope I'm not shattering any cherished myths or anything -- oh, hell, who am I kidding, I live for shattering cherished myths: mass-produced Canadian beer (Labatt's and Molson) is every bit as shitty as mass-produced American beer (Miller, Bud, etc). Also, micro-brewed American beer is, at the very least, on par with micro-brewed Canadian beer -- and, truth be told, outside Québec, it's (on average) much better.

This is not to say there aren't excellent Canadian micro-breweries -- of course there are -- BUT... Sturgeon's law applies just as much north of the 49th as south of it, and population densities being what they are, it's actually much easier to find a drinkable microbrew south of the 49th than north of it.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Now some American micro-brews are great. No problem there. But I do think Molson Canadian is fine. Mostly, I was giving a friendly pat on the shoulder to our Canadian friend.

But truth be told--and I'm half-English, and it pains me greatly not to give the prize to the Boddington's (on draught, please, no cans) or Sam Smith's pale ale, the Czechs have it all over everyone else, period. And not Pilsner Urquell bottles, either: Krusovice on tap is the real stuff. Czechvar is banging if you can't get that. (I think Czechvar may be the export version of Budweiser Budvar, which the Czechs can't sell outside of the Czech Republic, just as the crap American beer called Budweiser can't sell theirs inside the Czech Republic; I think the two Budweisers came to that agreement with each other. I may be wrong.) Now you see what you've done? You've made me want to visit the Czech Republic again, and I can't afford it yet!

[Njorl]

I didn't like the term at first. I saw no need for a "term" at all when there were perfectly good words already. But with so many people hating it, I'm beginning to like it.

[Slurmy Spoo]

Yeah, well, I only complained about the term Bright because of what Miss Beyerstein said:

So, yeah, people who are uptight about the word "Bright" can bite me.

... <nibble>

Hey, Canadians can be just as creepy as anyone else. Pfft.

[The Great Beast]

I prefer the term 'pathological atheist', myself.

And, as far as Lindsay's definitions go, I think there is a simpler portmanteau definition: A bright does not engage in magical thinking.

[vidkun]

You don't have to be bright to be rational, and that's all we're talking about here. When people can see that, they'll be ready to accept that letting a fundamentalist govern your country is like letting a five-year-old drive your car.

[Sebastian Dangerfield]

Damn, and I though 'naturalists' were those nekkid folk I saw playing beach volleyball when I was in Santa Cruz a coupla summers ago. Who sez 'rebranding' don't work?