a believer's response to the Brights.

[TruthSeeker]

the article


I'm curious about reactions to this article. FYI, I am neither a believer or a bright but I do think I'm pretty clever

[T'ai Chi]

Quote:

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
the article

I'm curious about reactions to this article. FYI, I am neither a believer or a bright but I do think I'm pretty clever

I've got news for you, thanks to overzealous naturalists, if you believe in a natural world, you are a "Bright".

And if you are not a "Bright", you are a "Believer".

Ain't labels grand. You can thank Dennet, Dawkins, and a whole slew of others for this silliness.

[Ceinwyn]

I never did like that term, and I disliked Randi using it even more. It does smack of elitism, and I always thought Randi of all people would not use superior terms to describe himself, or any group of people.

Unless it's just a big joke and I missed out.

[Soapy Sam]

If you do a quick forum search for the word " bright" in thread titles, you will see that the opinion of the term on this board is overwhelmingly negative.

I think it was a mistake which will quickly fade.

[thaiboxerken]

I never did like that term, and I disliked Randi using it even more. It does smack of elitism, and I always thought Randi of all people would not use superior terms to describe himself, or any group of people.

Why does it smack of elitism? It's simply a catch-word. The word "Atheist" seems to invoke some strange fears amongst the common folk, so they came up with "Bright".

I'm a Bright, and I'm proud to not have any supernatural beliefs.

In fact, two surveys earlier this year, one from Harris and one from Gallup, indicate that even supernatural religious beliefs are held not only by most Americans but by the majority of well-educated Americans.

Educated doesn't mean intelligent. Christians happen to control most of the money in the nation..colleges cost money.

You can't get a post-graduate degree without being taught rigorous examination of evidence--figuring out which symptoms indicate a particular disease, or what facts could justify a lawsuit. These people are among the most rational of our society and yet they still believe non-rational things.

I'm not so sure about this statement. Any post-grads have any comments on this?

But there is another possibility--that some of these rationally-oriented people have found actual proof for their beliefs.

Proof that they can't seem to show anyone. In other words, some kind of delusion or hallucination.

Maybe they've had a personal supernatural experience with prayer that makes them believe in God or an afterlife.

Delusions and/or hallucination.

Maybe they've found a compelling logic to their view - perhaps they’ve looked at the universe and said something made the Big Bang happen or marveled at human development and concluded that "the development of this blob of cells into a conscious human being cannot be explained just through science."

Appeals to emotion are hardly "logical".

For some highly educated people, faith is NOT a matter of faith. Rather, they see around them evidence -- evidence that is, to be sure, hard to explain or prove to others, but is nonetheless quite concrete to them.

In other words... faith.

Perhaps the Brights would dispute the evidence or assert that they have never seen it themselves, and that's fine. But they certainly cannot argue that religion is just for dumb people.

I compell anyone to find any quote in the Bright's website that calls religious people dumb or says that religion is just for dumb people. The author built a strawman, that's all.

I can certainly say that critical thought and reasoning are set aside when "faith" is introduced as a reason to believe.

[T'ai Chi]

I think it means the same thing "Clear" does.

[Glory]

Well, this an example of precisely the reaction I expected when I first heard the term "bright". It does imply that we think we are smarter than believers and that is antagonistic and counterproductive.

As far as belief and intelligence goes, clearly they are not mutually exclusive. I don't know anyone who thinks that they are.

I spotted a couple of things that bother me, though.

First, if the author wanted to know what atheists think about his evidence or proof of his beliefs he should ask some atheists. I don't like reading what I or someone like me might say. More straw for the straw man.

Second, like so many groups that are not groups, we find ourselves referred to as though we are all of one mind and all acting as one. It isn't specifically stated, but it is implied and I hate that. I know it is impractical but I would like to be dealt with as an individual rather than as a member of a group that I did not join and doesn't actually exist.

Glory

[xouper]

Quote:

thaiboxerken: I compell anyone to find any quote in the Bright's website that calls religious people dumb or says that religion is just for dumb people. The author built a strawman, that's all.

Of course it's a straw man. But the nature of the label "bright" almost guarantees the emergence of such straw man editorials. I predict there will be many more of them. It will be an unending, unnecessary, and pointless battle that distracts from the main issue of naturalism. And that's one of the reasons I don't like the label and refuse to use it to describe myself.

I have no sympathy for those who adopt the label "bright" and then complain that they are being misunderstood (e.g. those who holler "straw man, straw man"). That problem could have been avoided by choosing a better label. Maybe they aren't so bright after all.

[Ceinwyn]

I'm sure someone else has pointed this out, but...

the opposite of bright is dull.

I don't feel comfortable describing people who don't share my opinions or beliefs as dull.

[Ceinwyn]

Quote:

Originally posted by Glory
Second, like so many groups that are not groups, we find ourselves referred to as though we are all of one mind and all acting as one. It isn't specifically stated, but it is implied and I hate that. I know it is impractical but I would like to be dealt with as an individual rather than as a member of a group that I did not join and doesn't actually exist.


Glory

But that is just what the term "brights" implies.

Ironic, no?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I've got news for you, thanks to overzealous naturalists, if you believe in a natural world, you are a "Bright".

And if you are not a "Bright", you are a "Believer".

Ain't labels grand. You can thank Dennet, Dawkins, and a whole slew of others for this silliness.

Well OK, that makes me a "Bright" I suppose, but I think such a formulation is positively pernicious, not just silly. Much as I respect Randi and have been reading his stuff for decades, I think he's way off base in promoting this terminology.

It makes us sound like members of a psychic elite in a bad science fiction story.

[Pyrrho]

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I think it means the same thing "Clear" does.

Hmm...I don't think so, and I do not agree with your implied comparison of skepticism to Scientology, (there is a clear difference between the term "bright" and "Clear", as used in Scientology) but I agree there is a potential for "bright" to be misused as a descriptive term.

The connotation of "bright" is that a person who calls themselves a "bright" is somehow smarter, more rational, and better than people who are not considered to be "brights". I don't like that. I don't think it's realistic to think that way. I am not a "bright", and I would not appreciate being referred to as a "bright".

[Rayn]

Quote:

T'ai Chi said: I've got news for you, thanks to overzealous naturalists, if you believe in a natural world, you are a "Bright".

And if you are not a "Bright", you are a "Believer".

Ain't labels grand. You can thank Dennet, Dawkins, and a whole slew of others for this silliness.

I thought we were allowed to choose our own labels?

Anyways, as has been pointed out by numerous other people (which won't stop me from doing the same) "Bright" is just a laughably pompous term. However, I guess that is to be expected from someone who wrote a book entitled "Consciousness Explained" (which, I think is a fabulous book). Ah well, name-calling never really got anyone very far did it?

[smahon]

[Pardon the liberal use of the word 'we' in the following post. If you feel outraged by such a term please e-mail me directly, and don't simply clutter the board with "You don't speak for me!" posts. I'm new at this, so be gentle.]

I feel the many people raising doubts about the wisdom of choosing the word Bright have a valid point. However, I also feel that the objections against this or any other name are outweighed by the very fact of having any umbrella term for people with a naturalistic worldview.

I'm sure none of us regard believers or non-brights as dumb or inferior. So what are they?
Are they are simply wrong?
If you think the name 'Brights' causes problems, what about the 'Rights'. Political minefield.
Are they misguided, making us the Guides?
Are they <insert negative term> making us the <insert positive term which used as a collective term sounds pompous, elitist, or comical>?
Surely, this leads to the main reason that choosing to have a collective term, any term, is a useful action in itself.
When discussing religion, we become the atheists, unbelievers,...
When discussing the paranormal, we are the skeptics, rationalists,..
When discussing any topic about which we wish to speak (why else are we posting here?) we become the anti-topic people.
Whether at one extreme becoming heretics and blasphemers spreading our evil soul-destroying message, or at the other extreme simply spoilsports.
We always represent the at-odds voice of protest against a collective opinion.

It's only human nature to listen more sympathetically to those who put forward their own views in a positive manner, than those who only appear on the negative side. The effect is magnified when dealing with groups; with public opinion numbers matter.

Maybe it's about time people wishing to promote a naturalistic worldview made use of the enormous power and influence of being part of a movement. I know words like 'movement' send shudders down the spines of many readers of this forum, but counting yourself as part of a group of like-minded people is not always a bad thing.

So, that's my view. I think a movement, or at least the appearance of a cohesive community of like-minded people, is a good thing.

So, the name...
Bright is a word which in all of its connotations is a positive term.
The only negative aspects of the use of the word are that
(a) applying a positive term to oneself smacks of egotism
(b) the implication that anyone to which the term is not applied necessarily becomes a dull, dour, dim, gloomy, grim, unexceptional waste of carbon

Many serious (and not so serious) political and social organizations choose banner names to declare their aims and herald their intentions; e.g. Amnesty, Solidarity, ...
The more an organization becomes a single-issue body, the simpler the task of choosing a name to embody the goals.

As an umbrella term, the opposite effect occurs, making it more difficult to refine the complex and diverse views covered by the name, into a single term.
"The Naturalistic Worldviewers" - Accurate, but hardly elegant, and difficult to fit across a baseball cap.

So why not Bright?
Why not use a positive term?
Why be apologetic about our views?
If people want to take offence, then tough!

The opposite of gay is sombre,
The opposite of 'gay' is straight.

The opposite of bright is dull
The opposite of 'bright' can be doorknob, or perpendicular, or anything you like.

[arcticpenguin]

"Brights" want to give the word a new meaning. Do you assume that all "gay" people are happy? You would only do that if you confused the old and new meanings.

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

55% of people with POST graduate degrees - this is lawyers, doctors, dentists and the like - believe in the Devil
...
You can't get a post-graduate degree without being taught rigorous examination of evidence--figuring out which symptoms indicate a particular disease, or what facts could justify a lawsuit. These people are among the most rational of our society and yet they still believe non-rational things.

Not so. He is failing to mention that some of those post-graduate degrees might be in art history, English literature, or other fields that are more about personal interpretation than examination of evidence. Also, most of what is taught in dental schools is about taking care of teeth (surprise, surprise!) that about examining evidence of supernatural phenomena.

[smahon]

I don't think brights want to give the word a new meaning.
They want to take a common word that has no negative connotations, and adopt it as the label for their group.

I do consider myself a bright.

No, suprisingly enough, I don't assume all "gay" people are happy.
I do however assume that "gay" people are "gay".

Not all bright people are 'bright', and not all 'bright' people are bright.

Quote:

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
the article


I'm curious about reactions to this article. FYI, I am neither a believer or a bright but I do think I'm pretty clever

The article says:

Quote:

55% of people with POST graduate degrees - this is lawyers, doctors, dentists and the like - believe in the Devil
53% believe in hell
72% believe in miracles

Remember these are people with post graduate educations.

78% of them believe in the survival of the soul after death
60% believe in the virgin birth
and 64% believe in the resurrection of Christ.

You know I really find these figures incredibly difficult to believe. Do these figures refer to the denizens of the USA?? Must do. I can't imagine hardly anyone in England with a post-graduate degree believing in the devil! Jesus! You'd be thought of as being a right weirdo! I get the impression that the vast majority of people in the UK with post graduate degrees don't even believe in a God or an afterlife.

Are these figures truly for real or what??

[thaiboxerken]

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I think it means the same thing "Clear" does.

Insult noted. Clear and Bright does not mean the same thing in any context. In the context of "labels" for people, a Clear is the perfection that Scientologists wish to achieve.

Bright, however is just a name that several naturalists have decided to call themselves. Brights don't claim to be any smarter or more perfect than any other being.

[billydkid]

Quote:

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I never did like that term, and I disliked Randi using it even more. It does smack of elitism, and I always thought Randi of all people would not use superior terms to describe himself, or any group of people.

Why does it smack of elitism? It's simply a catch-word. The word "Atheist" seems to invoke some strange fears amongst the common folk, so they came up with "Bright".

I'm a Bright, and I'm proud to not have any supernatural beliefs.

I usually agree with you about virtually everything, but I really have a problem with buzz words. I don't like being lumped together and I don't like lumping people together. I do not and would not use the terms "bright" or "Woo Woo". It seems to me that by using such terms you are falling into the same nonthinking trap that so many of the folks we are critical of have fallen into. I do not believe in the supernatural or religion, but I would never call myself a bright.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rayn


I thought we were allowed to choose our own labels?

Anyways, as has been pointed out by numerous other people (which won't stop me from doing the same) "Bright" is just a laughably pompous term. However, I guess that is to be expected from someone who wrote a book entitled "Consciousness Explained" (which, I think is a fabulous book). Ah well, name-calling never really got anyone very far did it?

I'm sure the book explains p-zombie consciousness, and since he seems to believe that we're all p-zombies it surely is an appropriate title!

Go here to see what I mean by p-zombie consciousness (consciousness [z]).

[thaiboxerken]

Of course it's a straw man. But the nature of the label "bright" almost guarantees the emergence of such straw man editorials.

Does it, or is it more the nature of believers? Does the term "gay" mean that homosexuals think of all non-homosexuals as sad people?

I predict there will be many more of them. It will be an unending, unnecessary, and pointless battle that distracts from the main issue of naturalism. And that's one of the reasons I don't like the label and refuse to use it to describe myself.

That's your choice, I will call myself Bright though.


I have no sympathy for those who adopt the label "bright" and then complain that they are being misunderstood (e.g. those who holler "straw man, straw man"). That problem could have been avoided by choosing a better label.

Do you have the same lack of sympathy for anyone that is misunderstood and persecuted because they call themselves gay? Maybe they really can't be gay because their label causes sadness.

What label would you have suggested? It's my opinion that any label would be criticised by the believers. After all, they already think that there is something wrong with atheists are for not believing in their gods.

Maybe they aren't so bright after all.

Oh, I doubt that they are any less intelligent than average.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm sure someone else has pointed this out, but...

the opposite of bright is dull.

I don't feel comfortable describing people who don't share my opinions or beliefs as dull.

You don't have to describe anyone as being dull if you are a Bright.

[Mike D.]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I get the impression that the vast majority of people in the UK with post graduate degrees don't even believe in a God or an afterlife.

Ian,

That's interesting. I tend to think of England as more of a center for belief in and investigation of the paranormal than the United States. I have the impression that it would be easier to filnd people engaging in various forms of mediumship in the UK than in the US. And of course the SPR is in England. And one hears of various haunted manors, castles, etc. in the UK.

Of course my impression about this is merely an impression, and might have nothing to do with the reality.

Mike

[thaiboxerken]

Quote:

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Well OK, that makes me a "Bright" I suppose, but I think such a formulation is positively pernicious, not just silly. Much as I respect Randi and have been reading his stuff for decades, I think he's way off base in promoting this terminology.

It makes us sound like members of a psychic elite in a bad science fiction story.

You aren't a Bright until you decide to call yourself one. It's a "club" of some sort that you actually have to volunteer to be a part of. Don't like the club, don't join then. It's like Republican, you can agree with many of their views, but it's up to you to call youself one.

Quote:

Originally posted by smahon

I feel the many people raising doubts about the wisdom of choosing the word Bright have a valid point. However, I also feel that the objections against this or any other name are outweighed by the very fact of having any umbrella term for people with a naturalistic worldview.

There already is an umbrella term, it's called naturalism. Nor do I believe it conveys negative connotations. Indeed on the converse!

As a matter of interest I would how many "brights" or naturalists actually understand what the term naturalism means?

Quote:

Originally posted by smahon
Maybe it's about time people wishing to promote a naturalistic worldview.

Why do they wish to promote a naturalist worldview? Surely before doing that they should advance some arguments suggesting it is correct? I have never heard any such arguments.

[thaiboxerken]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

As a matter of interest I would how many "brights" or naturalists actually understand what the term naturalism means?

Don't answer him, don't do it! He'll just tell you to stuff your dictionaries and that he's the only person that really knows what naturalism means.

[Nyarlathotep]

I heard this editorial on the radio the other day. It annoyed me then, it annoys me now. While I thin the label "bright" is a silly and stupid thing, this guys rebuttal is sillier and stupider. The whole arguemnt boils down to a strawman coupled with an appeal to authority (or an appeal to popularity, depending on how you look at it). The strawman is the assertion that the term bright is meant to imply believers are stupid and since they aren't necessarily that this makes them right. The appeal to authority is the assertion that since a lot of PhDs believe in the supernatural, that this somehow means that the supernatural exists. The guy who wrote the ditorial really, really needs a primer on basic logic.

I also have to agree with Ian on a point, I question whether the numbers apply only to the US. I can't see that many educated British (a nation that is very atheistic at all levels, if I recall my numbers correctly) holding theistic beliefs.

[thaiboxerken]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Why do they wish to promote a naturalist worldview? Surely before doing that they should advance some arguments suggesting it is correct? I have never heard any such arguments.

That's because you are stupid, Ian. Nothing will ever convince you that your supernatural world is just a fictional thing.

There is no evidence of anything BUT the material world.

[Clancie]

Quote:

From the article

Are atheists and agnostics smarter than everyone else? A group of them have managed to assert that idea

The whole thing doesn't even make sense. Many of the billion people living in China, for example, are atheists/agnostics. Can we assume they're smarter than every religious American just for that reason alone?

The whole thing just makes the "brights" who thought of it seem incredibly stupid.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike D.


Ian,

That's interesting. I tend to think of England as more of a center for belief in and investigation of the paranormal than the United States. I have the impression that it would be easier to filnd people engaging in various forms of mediumship in the UK than in the US. And of course the SPR is in England. And one hears of various haunted manors, castles, etc. in the UK.

Of course my impression about this is merely an impression, and might have nothing to do with the reality.

Mike

I certainly get the impression that belief in these things are vastly more prevalent in the usa. Amongst intellectuals in the UK, even saying you believe in a life after death is liable to elicit funny looks. And as for saying you believe in the devil! Hell, even I'd steer clear of such people! LOL

I've always thought of my beliefs as being of a minority opinion. I'm sort of like the converse of what freethinkers were a couple of centuries ago. I see myself as striking out against the irrational belief system (materialism etc) engendered by the common western metaphysic.

Quote:

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


That's because you are stupid, Ian. Nothing will ever convince you that your supernatural world is just a fictional thing.

There is no evidence of anything BUT the material world.

First of all you should try to understand that naturalism doesn't equate to materialism. Indeed, one could be an idealist and be a naturalist!

And indeed one could be a materialist yet not be a naturalist.

[thaiboxerken]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And indeed one could be a materialist yet not be a naturalist.

Hence, the need for the term "Bright".

[T'ai Chi]

I'm expecting "Brights" will sell books with the word "Bright" in the title, and also publish extremely trite articles expouding their philosophy in their "Bright" magazines.

[thaiboxerken]

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm expecting "Brights" will sell books with the word "Bright" in the title, and also publish extremely trite articles expouding their philosophy in their "Bright" magazines.

So?

[T'ai Chi]

This is a good article on secular humanism revivial, oops, I mean "Brights":

http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/003522.html

[thaiboxerken]

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
This is a good article on secular humanism revivial, oops, I mean "Brights":

http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/003522.html

Hardly, this is just another article fighting a strawman.

[Kerberos]

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
This is a good article on secular humanism revivial, oops, I mean "Brights":

http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/003522.html

Bright’s aren't the same as secular humanists Bright’s don't have to be humanistic and secular humanists can be superstitious as long as they don't believe in god. In any case I agree that the word "Bright" is somewhat arrogant, and I personally would use “Naturalist” instead.