Not a very bright idea
Daniel Dennett
When Tony Blair first became leader of the Labour Party in 1994, the Sun newspaper, a British tabloid, took to calling him ‘Bambi’, presumably in the hope that the nickname would become established in the public consciousness. It did not, of course, for it lacked any kind of resonance with what people could believe about Blair. He wasn’t a child, his leadership was anything but childlike, and he lacked the requisite number of legs to be a baby deer. Not discouraged, the Sun was at it again in 2001, this time when Iain Duncan Smith became leader of the Conservative Party. In what was probably a desperate attempt to establish his man of the people credentials, it started to call him ‘Smithy’. A quite absurd conceit, given his double-barrelled name and former career as an army officer. Needless to say, this nickname didn’t catch on either, and almost universally in the UK media, Duncan Smith came to be known as IDS.
None of this is surprising. If your aim is to coin, ex nihilo, a name or epithet which quickly gains widespread public acceptance, the chances of success are not great. Even the media, with its ability to talk daily to massive audiences, fails as often as it succeeds. Thus, for every ‘Slick Willy’, you’ll find that there is a ‘Bambi’, for every ‘loony left’ a ‘Doris Karloff’.
This is a comforting thought for a secularist at the present time. For a rather unfortunate meme has lately infected the minds of some leading exponents of a naturalistic worldview. It is a meme which says that it would be a good idea if people without belief in things supernatural started to call themselves ‘brights’.
The meme started with two people from Sacramento, California. Though atheists, Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell did not want to be referred to as being ‘godless’, so they came up with the word ‘bright’ to better describe their naturalistic worldview. Their hope is that other nonbelievers will also use the word, and that it will become an umbrella term for the whole range of naturalistic philosophies (i.e., atheist, agnostic, humanist, etc.). They have setup a website, The Brights Net (www.the-brights.net), to this end, and have attracted a number of high profile advocates, including Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, both of whom have written articles supporting the idea.
It is easy enough to understand the efficacy of this meme. The naturalistic philosophies of the non-religious do not play the same kind of high profile role in political and civic life as do the supernaturalist ideas of their religious counterparts. This is the case particularly in the United States, but also in the United Kingdom, where, for example, assorted bishops get to sit on various ethics committees simply because they are bishops. Given this situation, any intervention which promises to raise the profile of naturalistic thinking is bound to be attractive at first sight. The trouble is that it doesn’t take too many more sights of the brights idea to realise that it is badly flawed.
First, ‘bright’ is just the wrong word. How it was chosen in the first place isn’t quite clear. It seems to have had something to do with the fact that it is a ‘positive’ and ‘memorable’ word; and also that it is sufficiently puzzling or enigmatic when used as a noun – ‘I am a bright’ –that it invites the response, ‘What’s a bright?’, thereby allowing a person to talk about their naturalistic worldview. But there are major problems with the word.
The first is that its enigmatic quality is indicative of a fundamental arbitrariness in its relationship to the phenomenon that it names. It’s the let’s call Tony Blair ‘Bambi’ problem. Dawkins imagines that a bright might have a conversation which goes like this:
‘”What on earth is a bright”? And then you’re away. “A bright is a person whose world view is free of supernatural and mystical elements….”
“You mean a bright is an atheist?”
“Well, some brights are happy to call themselves atheists. Some brights call themselves agnostics. Some call themselves humanists, some freethinkers. But all brights have a world view that is free of supernaturalism and mysticism.”’
(Richard Dawkins, ‘The future looks bright’, The Guardian, June 21st 2003)
All very nice, except that the conversation is far more likely to go something like this:
‘What on earth is a bright?’
‘A bright is a person whose world view is free of supernatural and mystical elements.’
‘Right. So why the word “bright” then?’
‘Err. Well it’s a positive word. And memorable.’
‘So is the word “truffle”, but you wouldn’t call yourself a truffle. So why “bright”?’
‘Well, it’s what this couple from Sacramento came up with… and it is a very cheerful word!’
The arbitrariness of the choice of the word ‘bright’, though undermining its potential as a meme, would not matter so much were it not for the fact that one of the established uses of the word is as an adjective meaning ‘clever’ or ‘intelligent’. The problem here is that in the absence of an obvious reason to explain how it is that the word ‘bright’ designates a person who espouses a naturalist worldview, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that what is being suggested is that it is more intelligent to embrace naturalism than it is to embrace supernaturalism.
It must be said that the supporters of the brights idea are quite clear that the word should not be taken to be an adjective in this way. However, this does not make the problem go away. It should be obvious why it does not. For starters, there is the trivial point that you cannot strip a word of its associations simply by denying that you intend them. [1] Nor can you do so by using the word in a slightly strange way (i.e., as a noun). If someone announces that they’re a bright, then likely it will occur to their audience that what they actually mean is that they are bright. The fact that they will also be unable to explain why the word ‘bright’ is appropriate as a label for someone with a naturalistic worldview will do nothing to allay this suspicion.
There is also a slightly more complex point to be made here. To be an atheist in the United States – and also in some ways in the United Kingdom – is to set oneself against the dominant culture. There is, therefore, a tendency to associate atheism with a certain kind of intellectual independence. This is reflected in the names of the groups with which many atheists associate themselves (e.g., freethinkers; skeptics; etc). And it also underpins the anti-intellectual sentiment of much of the religious sermonising characteristic of Christian fundamentalism. The problem with the word ‘bright’ is that it is too easily seen as confirming this link between atheism and intellectuality. Or to put this more precisely, if people with no belief in god begin to self-identify as brights, they run the risk of apparently confirming what many religious people already suspect about them, that they consider themselves to be better or more intelligent than people who believe in a god.
Does this matter? Yes it does, if one is interested in convincing people of the merits of a naturalistic worldview. To start with, there is the obvious point that people are more likely to be receptive to new ideas if they feel that they are being treated with respect. But perhaps more worryingly, a movement which self-identifies as a movement of brights makes itself a hostage to rhetorical fortune. It is extremely easy – and, it must be said, very tempting – to parody the whole idea of a brights movement. And, of course, this is exactly what the enemies of a naturalistic worldview will do should the idea take off. The brights movement will find itself transmogrified into a ‘We’re smarter than you’ movement. And, at that point, protesting that the word was chosen simply because it is ‘warm’ and ‘cheerful’ will just result in more parody and more laughter.
‘Bright’, then, is the wrong choice of word to designate a person with a naturalistic worldview and as an umbrella term for a movement. But substituting a different word won’t make the brights idea a good one because it is muddle-headed for other reasons. Perhaps the most interesting of these has to do with what appears to be an unspoken assumption about people with a naturalistic worldview.
The assumption seems to be that the rejection of supernaturalism is enough to qualify someone as a person without religion. This claim is only unproblematic if one defines religion as involving supernatural beliefs. However, there is at least an argument that the sphere of the religious can be extended to include aspects of the secular world. It is an argument inspired by the French sociologist Emile Durkheim. He claimed that the realm of the sacred is distinguished by the separateness of its objects from those of the world of the profane, and by the system of interdictions which prevents them from being denied. [2] If one accepts this conception, then there are secular phenomena which qualify as sacred. So Durkheim talks of ‘common beliefs of every sort connected to objects that are secular in appearance, such as the flag, one’s country, some forms of political organisation, certain heroes or historical events’, which are ‘indistinguishable from beliefs that are properly religious’; and he notes that ‘Public opinion does not willingly allow one to contest the moral superiority of democracy, the reality of progress, [or] the idea of equality, just as the Christian does not allow his fundamental dogmas to be questioned.’
It is easy to understand what Durkheim is getting at. It is only necessary to attend a meeting organised by a group like the Socialist Workers Party to become very quickly aware that people can hold secular beliefs to be every bit as inviolable as religious beliefs often are for the religious. Of course, this point is already well understood. For example, in a review of Steven Rose et al’s Not in Our Genes, Richard Dawkins, commenting on their arguments against ‘genetic determinism’, has this to say: ‘The myth of the “inevitability” of genetic effects has nothing whatever to do with sociobiology, and has everything to do with Rose et al’s paranoiac and demonological theology of science. [my italics]’ (Richard Dawkins, New Scientist 24 January 1985).
What this means for the brights idea is that the criterion of a naturalistic worldview is no guarantee that people will be free of the kind of thinking which is quite reasonably described as ‘religious’. Or to put this another way, it is no guarantee that people will not be committed to beliefs, or sets of beliefs, which are beyond rational scrutiny in the same way as are many of the beliefs which are associated with theism. Possibly the supporters of the brights movement will not deny this, but rather claim that it does not matter too much, that their expectation has never been that they will create a movement of absolutely rigorous thinkers, each one holding up their beliefs to the light of reason. Fair enough. Except for two further points.
First, there is just a suggestion in some of the writings of the supporters of the brights idea that they see themselves as the true inheritors of the Enlightenment tradition. Well, it just isn’t this clear-cut. First off, the belief in a deity, in and of itself, does not rule out an attitude towards this world which is entirely consistent with the Enlightenment emphasis on reason and the progress of human knowledge. But perhaps more significantly, many people who qualify as brights would have a decidedly ambivalent attitude towards the products of the Enlightenment. Just consider, for example, that many Marxists would agree with Rose et al that ‘science is the ultimate legitimator of bourgeois ideology.’ (Not in Our Genes). And that from amongst the whole caboodle of postmodern thinkers, at least some will be prepared to commit to agnosticism, and will no doubt claim something like ‘that progress in social thought is not possible without a thorough critique of the Enlightenment, whether for its justification of the domination of nature, or its authoritative support for belief systems like scientific racism or sexism, or for the monocultural legacy of its assumptions about rationality.’ (Andrew Ross, The Sokal Hoax).
Which thoughts lead on to the second point about the kind of movement the brights idea is likely to foster. It is certainly going to contain some odd bedfellows. Scientific atheists and Marxist atheists will be united in thinking that there is definitely no god, but they’ll fight like cats and dogs over the fate of the bourgeoisie. The agnostics will irritate both groups by sitting on the fence, whilst freethinkers drive themselves crazy trying to find a viewpoint unique to themselves. The skeptics will watch the whole thing from afar with slightly cynical smiles, and the postmodernists will talk past themselves, as per usual. As for the rest of the world? They won’t see past the name. And laughter and parody will be the result. Therefore, one can only hope that the ‘bright’ meme fails on its evolutionary journey.
Footnotes
[1] The observant reader will notice that there is an echo here of the criticism that some people have made of the language of Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene. For the record, I think the criticism is misplaced in the case of The Selfish Gene.
[2] There’s obviously a lot more to Durkheim’s argument than this mere bald assertion. See his The Elementary Forms of Religious Life; and also, for a summary of the argument I’m making here, J. C. Alexander’s The Antinomies of Classical Thought: Marx and Durkheim (Routledge, 1982), pp. 242 -250.
This article was originally published at ButterfliesandWheels.Com.
Category: Philosophy, Science, Sociology, religion | Tags: Darwin, evolution, humanism, natural selection, religion, wishful thinking 76 comments »
April 8th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Just to emphsize how bad the idea is: I read a review of Dennett’s book several years ago in which the idea of atheists calling themselves “brights” was mentioned. I immediately assumed that Dennett meant that atheists are brighter, that is, more intelligent than theists and decided that given such a pretentious and false idea, I wouldn’t read Dennett’s book. Reading your post, I learned that I had misinterpreted what Dennett meant, but I imagine that many people make the same mistake. I’m an atheist, by the way.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Well said and well taken.
A word commonly used among philosophers to refer to those holding a naturalistic worldview is “naturalist.” The philosophers John Dewey, George Santayana, Frederick Woodbridge, John Randall and others considered themselves naturalists in this sense, part of the school of American Naturalism in the early 20th century. Some object to using naturalist because it has other meanings, but usually the context is sufficient to disambiguate. If not, simply say “naturalist, as opposed to supernaturalist.” Too bad about “bright” since there was already a perfectly good descriptive moniker for naturalists, namely naturalist.
best,
Tom Clark
Center for Naturalism
http://www.naturalism.org
April 8th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Thanks Tom. Nice to see you visiting here. Yes “naturalist” is much better than “bright”. But I’m still slightly wary about the way in which these monikers almost inevitably carry suggestions of superiority. I just don’t buy that a Marxist-Leninist of this ilk, for example, is more rational than say a Church of England liberal simply by virtue of their commitment to naturalism.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Amos
Dennett uses the word “bright” in his Breaking the Spell in a fairly systematic way. It is very irritating. In fact, the whole book is irritating because it has this air of smug condescension about it, but married to some fairly wild, and really not very worthwhile, evolutionary speculation. (Plus he talks about Emile Durkheim, yet neglects to spell his name correctly (which is a small, unimportant point, but kind of indicative).)
April 8th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Jeremy,
Quite right, naturalists can fail to be rational, especially in what they call themselves! A lesson to us all.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
The Church of England liberal is rational and sane, in spite of his Christianity. The lack of rationality and sanity of the Marxist-Leninist have no connection with his naturalism. In fact, the problems with Marxism-Leninism generally have to do with certain non-naturalist assumptions: that reality is dialectic (dialectic materialism); that there are laws of history; that history has a fixed outcome, communism; that most (or all) of mankind’s ills are the result of capitalism. None of those assumptions (and there are others) has a basis in nature, that is, in the observation of reality.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Amos
Sure, but the point is that this move to lump all atheists together under one umbrella tends to be associated with the thought that somehow their lack of belief in God is enough to demonstrate their superiority as rational thinkers.
But it ain’t like that. I know lots of atheists. There are very few I’d say were any more rational than a Church of England liberal (and many less so).
April 9th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Atheists may be more rational about one subject, the existence of God; that is no guarantee that they are more rational about the subject of, say, alternative medical therapies. People tend to compartmentalize (does that word exist?) their thinking. As to Marxism-Leninism, Marx tried to write a naturalistic, that is, empirical account of capitalism.
He made a lot of mistakes and you could see the work of Marx as something like behaviorism, a naturalistic explanation that has been falsified. However, at some point Marxism became a dogma for lots of people, with a sacred book and saints (Rosa Luxemburg, el Che, Trotsky, etc.), and no longer can be considered naturalistic. Actually, there are many ways to criticize capitalism from an ethical point of view which don’t involve the dogmas of Marxism-Leninist.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Right, except having a belief that can be rationally justified doesn’t mean that you hold that belief for reasons that are rationally justified. It might be that atheists tend to be atheists for sociological reasons, and that the justifications get bolted on afterwards (in other words, they were always going to be atheists, even if atheism were not rationally justified).
Generally speaking, I’m very suspicious of the idea that beliefs are causally related to their justifications (i.e., that people believe things because it is rationally justified to believe them).
Actually, I’m fairly suspicious of the idea that we have beliefs at all – or at least I have worries about the ontological status of beliefs – but that’s another story.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Obviously, one can arrive at a rational conclusion by non-rational means: that is, be an atheist because Marx is one or because one’s parents are. However, while not all beliefs are casually related to their justifications, some are. When you say that you are suspicious of the idea that we have beliefs at all, I don’t understand what you mean, unless you’re questioning whether we “have” beliefs, whether beliefs are something that we can have.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Jeremy, I appreciate the intellectual integrity and honesty of your article above. As a committed Christian, it is refreshing to be able to look into the clear undogmatic reflection of a secularist (or Christian or Muslim or Hindu, etc. for that matter).
You are sceptical that people believe things because it is rationally justified to believe them. I think I can give you an anecdote from my own conversion experience:
I had always thought I was Christian until one moment when my understanding of Christ broke through from being merely intellectual (like knowing the biography of Christ inside out) to an existential level (like meeting the real person whose biography I previously just read). This moment of ‘epiphany’ was so real that it made me cross over from a mere intellectual position to a commitment that involves my whole being. It was only after this that I undertook extensive research into merely rational / philosophical justifications for my Christian belief.
In fact, the NT Greek word for faith, PISTES, primarily denotes a kind of firm persuasion (hence indicating the role of reason, albeit not necessarily the primary driver)m a conviction based upon hearing (hence involving a moral commitment, just as Dennett or Dawkins would seem to be morally committed to their beliefs). Hence, if I am correct, from the perspective of the New Testament, while rational justification may be a necessary condition for faith, it is not a sufficient condition.
I am sure you are able to poke holes in my arguments, but I do want to preliminarily suggest that your worries about the ontological status of beliefs are perhaps legitimate or logically justifiable worries within the naturalist’s worldview, but then it also occurs to me that the proposition that questions the ontological status of beliefs might run the risk of self-negation, perhaps?
April 9th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Gibbor
Yes, that’s an interesting example. I have a kind of opposite example. My girlfriend’s father is a Catholic. Goes to Church every week, has pictures of “Our Lady” around his house, etc.
Anyway, he developed a heart condition which was life threatening (he’s survived it!). He was musing about mortality one day – quite unselfconsciously, not monitoring what he was saying, etc – and he said, “Well, I’ve had operations, I know what it’s like simply to be not conscious, just not to be there, I suppose death will be something like that”.
I almost choked! So I said: “But mate, you’re a Catholic, you believe in God, life after death, that kind of thing.”
“Oh yes, so I do!”, he said.
But it isn’t really clear that he did believe in those things, even if he thought that he did.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Jeremy, I also almost choked when I read your girlfriend’s father’s ‘epigrams’, which goes to illustrate the disjuncture between mind and heart that is quite common with people in various areas, not the least in their theology.
I said to myself I would put God my first priority every day (so that’s an intellectual position in my mind at least), but when I still hadn’t been able to land a job amidst the hiring freezes going on, I started to recede from social meetings with peers who still had a job. After a few weeks, I reflected on my behaviour, and discovered that there has been a disjuncture between my mind and my heart: my true heart’s commitment erroneously rested on confidence that a job can supposedly give me, and not confidence in Christ!
We can stop here and then my example would be similar in nature to your father’s girlfriend; but upon that moment of realisation, I repented in prayer to God. and once I have surrendered my confidence in a job, I have found my confidence in Christ increased. So, a realignment of a part of my ontology ensued…
April 9th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
I interviewed the Christian physicist Russell Stannard, a while ago now (I might put the interview up on this site at some point): he told me that there were times in his life where he was unable to feel God’s presence in his prayer life. He said he had come to realise that this only happened when he became too taken up in the cares of this world.
(Obviously, I’m making no claim here about the accuracy of what he stated – just reporting that he stated it!).
April 10th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Thanks for that account. I think that the correspondences of mother Teresa are very interesting in this regard. Here’s a report by Times Magazine in Aug 07 (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415-1,00.html).
Norman Geisler has argued that “as a source and basis of truth the experientialist’s claim [that all truth is determined by experience] may be correct, but as a test or warrant for the truth of that [further] claim [that there is a recognisable and self-attesting religious experience] he is decidedly wrong. For no experience is self-interpreting and there are conflicting truth claims built on experience with no purely experiential way to adjudicate between them”.
From a Christian perspective (not making a philosophical argument here), I think that John 1:1 in the bible is particularly instructive, for it says, “In the beginning was the Word”, and not the video, nor the feeling, etc.
The NT Greek word used for “Word” is LOGOS, which denotes the expression of thought – not the mere name of an object – as embodying a conception or idea, and for the Christian, a title of the Son of God, the personal manifestation, not of a part of the Divine nature, but the whole Deity. (Source: W.E.Vine)
April 10th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
“For no experience is self-interpreting and there are conflicting truth claims built on experience with no purely experiential way to adjudicate between them”.”
Hmmmm. I think there’s more to be said about this actually. It seems to me that it is logically consistent to claim that I am having an experience that must be true, and that if you’re having an experience that you take to be veridical that contradicts mine then you’re just mistaken about its nature, and if you were able to have my experience then you’d realise it.
Of course, you’ll argue that you think exactly the same thing about your experience, but… what do I care, if you had my experience then you’d know you were mistaken.
Probably the next response will be that this almost solipsisitic conception of truth does violence to the concept, but… what do I care, if you had my experience, you’d know that it is self-interpreting (so much the worse for your conception of truth).
Okay, I’m half kidding here, but I think I could construct a more rigorous version of this argument.
Not that I think it’s right.
April 12th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Happy Easter!
That’s a half-funny position to take as an exercise:
“It seems to me that it is logically consistent to claim that I am having an experience that must be true, and that if you’re having an experience that you take to be veridical that contradicts mine then you’re just mistaken about its nature, and if you were able to have my experience then you’d realise it.”
Would it be ‘logically consistent’ because it is consistent with a particular framework / worldview (while the basis for that framework is not the question at this instant, but merely whether that position aforementioned is appropriate given the parameters of the framework), or would the moot argument be that the position is properly basic (in the sense of being immediately justified)?
Whichever way, I wonder how the position, even in a more rigorous form, would answer the correspondence theory of truth, and the law of non-contradiction.
I recall a ‘conversation’ between Protagoras and Aristotle, and although it was in the context of ethical relativism and absolutism, I think Aristotle’s argument may also be applied here for thought…
PROTAGORAS ON TRUTH
Man is the measure of al things: of things that are, that they are; of things that are not, that they are not.
ARISTOTLE METAPHYSICS 1062B13
[Protagoras] was saying, in other words, that each individual’s private impression is absolutely true. But if that position is adopted, then it follows that the same thing is and is not, that it is both good and bad, and similarly for other contradictions; because, after all, a given thing will seem beautiful to one group of people and ugly to another, and by the theory in question each of the conflicting appearances will be “the measure.”
April 12th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Gibbor
Hmmmm. Well I don’t think people have such experiences. But what I’m getting at it isn’t enough simply to assert that no experience is self-interpreting.
So, for example, to answer Aristotle’s objection, the proposition is not that every individual’s private impression is absolutely true. It’s:
a) Self-intepreting, veridical, experiences are a logical possibility;
b) If two people assert contradictory stuff on the basis of what they claim are instances of a), then:
c) One (or both) of them is wrong about the nature of their experience;
d) This doesn’t threaten the existence of a), since the claim here is not that one cannot be mistaken in thinking that not-a) is a), it’s that one cannot mistake an a) if one has an a).
e) So the question is how do you know if it’s a genuine a)? Well you just do if it is genuine (in other words, there’s something about the nature of the experience that makes it different from those where you can be wrong, but you don’t know this until you’ve had a genuine one).
April 12th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Jeremy,
I finally see what you mean! I am on the same page with you on points a), b & c), and that c) does not threaten the existence of a). Presently, I would agree with point e) only as long as it is cited as a source of truth (about God,etc.) rather than as a test for that truth, for it begs the question to appeal to the experience to prove the truth of that experience. There may be true religious expressions (experiences of God), but these are different from expressions (statements) about those experiences.
To a large extent, I think I do live by that last statement in the previous paragraph. For even though Christ met me in a very real way at the climax of my conversion experience (the difference for me of meeting a person at a point in time as opposed to reading about him in a biography all my life), I do not share that experience with others as an apologetic or argument for Christianity, or at least as a kind of witness to the non-believer!
April 13th, 2009 at 8:51 am
“rather than as a test for that truth, for it begs the question to appeal to the experience to prove the truth of that experience. ”
Sure, but with the caveat that whilst it isn’t reasonable for the person who has this experience to expect somebody else to be convinced on the basis of their testimony about it, we can’t rule out that it might be entirely reasonable for them to be convinced about its truth simply because of the nature of the experience.
That’s crucial, I think (though there’s a set of complications here that come into play if one starts thinking along the lines of Wittgenstein’s private language argument).
Not that I should be defending an argument for God from religious experience. But I get irritated that some atheists think it is oh so easy to demolish the grounds for a rational belief in God.
April 13th, 2009 at 9:25 am
It depends a lot by what you mean by “God”, doesn’t it? In another words, if you define “God” right, it’s impossible to demolish the grounds for a rational belief in Its existence. It’s hard to come up with a rational proof for the existence of the God of the Old or
New Testament, if you take those texts literally. It would be extraordinarily difficult to demolish the proof for the existence of the God of Spinoza’s Ethics, for example, and unlike some atheists, I do not believe that Spinoza was a closet atheists: the people who see Spinoza as a closet atheist haven’t read the Ethics.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:32 am
“It’s hard to come up with a rational proof for the existence of the God of the Old or
New Testament”
I’d want to distinguish a rational belief in God from a rational proof for God’s existence (for reasons Gibbor alludes to).
April 13th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Jeremy:
“whilst it isn’t reasonable for the person who has this experience to expect somebody else to be convinced on the basis of their testimony about it, we can’t rule out that it might be entirely reasonable for them to be convinced about its truth simply because of the nature of the experience.”
I am persuaded that the distinction as it is (without further specification) is true with regard to the moment I decided to put my trust in Christ. I think that Wittgenstein leaves open the possibility of rational belief based on a religious experience, the possibility that the person can feel or know anything from God. But what Wittgenstein knows when he said “the facts of the world are no the end of the matter” (Notebooks) he cannot really talk about.
The language games in Wittgenstein’s sense are also very interesting, along with his assumption that language converges with reality, which seems to have a superficial parallel with Spinoza’s assumption that creation differs from God only as a mode that is different from its substance, the convergence in the infinitude of both the effect and the cause…
April 13th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Amos:
“It depends a lot by what you mean by “God”, doesn’t it? In another words, if you define “God” right, it’s impossible to demolish the grounds for a rational belief in Its existence.”
I am not very familiar with Spinoza’s god. So, just want to ask a few clarifying questions to make sure we are writing on the same page:
Assuming that Spinoza gave a coherent definition of his god in his ethics, did he give an argument in support of his definition?
April 14th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Gibbor: Spinoza never gives arguments in favor of his definitions. His definitions are stipulative, although many could be accepted by most rational people. “God: By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, that is, a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence.” That definition depends in turn on his definitions of “substance” and “attribute”, which precede it.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Thanks for the answer, Amos. I just have a follow up question to what you said: by “rational people”, who do you include (and exclude), and following that, would these people deny or accept the conjecture that the universe had a beginning or not?
April 14th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Gibbor: I don’t know if Spinoza thought that all rational people would accept his definitions or not. I merely mean that his definitions are such that they could be accepted by rational people. It might be better not to equate Spinoza’s God or one Substance with the universe, as some people do, but with Being or with What is or Reality. Spinoza isn’t talking about the universe found in physics manuals. Being for Spinoza is eternal. By the way, eternity for Spinoza isn’t just an infinite duration of time. I myself don’t believe that it is meaningful to talk about the beginning of Being, so in a metaphoric way at least I agree with Spinoza that Being is eternal.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Amos, I appreciate the clarifications. I think there are several aspects of your preceding discussion that bridge with my thinking.
For example, you don’t believe that it is “meaningful to talk about the beginning of Being”. With the added emphasis that we are talking about a Necessary Being (as indicated by your capital letter B), I think, as you do, that it is not meaningful to ask a question about the beginning of the Necessary Being.
Another point I can relate to is what you said about “eternity… isn’t just an infinite duration of time”. In a way, for us, trying to define eternity is a little similar to ants trying to define human beings, because we are live in and are restricted by a time-space continuum.
Further, I grant that the philosophical system developed by Spinoza may be an internally coherent one which rational people are willing to accept with rationality.
Notwithstanding the above comments, I do want to discuss two objections (or at least connundrums that need to be solved) about Spinoza’s god as presented by you, through a framework of truth-testing, as follows:
Ravi Zacharias has argued that any worldview or philosophical systems need to at least answer four deep questions about life: origin – where do we come from; morality – what is good; condition – what is the human condition; salvation – where are we going (or not going).
For each of these four aspects, as rational beings with practical living experience and wisdom, we need to ask at least three questions: Is the theory logically consistent? Is the theory experientially relevant? Is the theory empirically adequate?
Using the above framework, I believe we can meaningfully test out the ‘integrity’ of Spinoza’s system as presented by you.
For example, on the question of origins (where do we come from), is Spinoza’s theory a)logically consistent, b)experientially relevant, and c)empirically adequate?
For you (someone who presumably has read Spinoza’s Ethics carefully, rationally, and reasonably), teat a) will be satisfied, meaning that Spinoza’s system is internally coherente.
On the experiential relvance of his theory of origins, we could ask questions such as whether Spinoza’s theory seems to be in sufficient accordance with the way we live or are able to live out our lives. For Spinoza, we (i.e. Amos and Gibbor, etc.) are only different modes of the same Being. The implication seems to be that we are not different personalities, or at least do not have different ontologies/identities. If that is so, it would not really be meaningful to distinguish your mom from yourself, or your wife from your neighbour’s wife, etc. But is that the way we live?
On the question of empirical adequacy: I asked the question about the conjecture that the universe had a beginning with this test in mind. With regard to recent advancements in origin science (not operation science), there is undeniably an emerging consensus that the universe had a beginning (e.g. by the second law of thermodynamics, by Einstein’s theory of relativity, etc.). If it does have a beginning, then the universe cannot have existed infintely. But if the universe has a finite existence, then it must at least not be of the same essence with or part of the eternal Being that you have alluded to, following Spinoza…
Finally, even if Spinoza’s system is internally coherent, this leaves wide open the question of whether his system in the first place is justifiable, for we can find many systems that are logically consistent within, but still leave the question of which system is the most accurate description of reality unanswered. For example, you can have a novel whose plot is internally consistent, but nevertheless, it still remains a novel!!!!
April 15th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Gibbor: I’m not a Spinozist or even a Spinoza scholar. However, I will corrrect one error in your post. Spinoza never denies individuality; in fact, one of his best known ideas is that of the conatus: Ethics 3 p.6, “each thing, as far as it can by its own power, strives to persevere in its being”. Spinoza affirms a strange kind of ethical egoism, which is hardly consistent with denying individuality. As I said before, Spinoza is not affirming the eternity of the universe, as presented in physics manuals, but the eternity of Being. However, for Spinoza there are not two types of being or two Beings, God and reality. There is no Being called God for Spinoza; God is Being and Being is God.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Amos: interesting information. I must submit the possibility that pantheists should find it harder to affirm individuality meaningfully. Further, the universe is part of what we experience as reality. Actually, a BIG part, so if a theory is inapplicable in respect of the universe of “physics manuals”, I must say that that theory should be quite unsatisfying in terms of the way it answers the deep questions of life, if indeed it even bothered to answer those questions…
But thanks for the discussion anyway, I think I have learnt something more about Spinoza.
April 15th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Gibbor: it would not be realistic to expect Spinoza to understand modern physics, since he died in 1677, ten years before Newton published his chief works.
As to pantheism, I’m not a pantheist myself, but pantheism affirms that Being has divine properties, not that there is a divine Being. That Being (or Reality) has divine properties has nothing to with the fact that there are individuals (beings). I think that language is bewitching us here. If you’re interested in Spinoza, read the Ethics, especially book 1, which is about God. A good secondary source pointing out Spinoza’s technical errors is Jonathan Bennett’s Study of Spinoza’s Ethics. A more favorable account is Stuart Hampshire’s Spinoza. Reading Spinoza is not difficult, since he proceeds as in geometry, proof by proof.
April 21st, 2009 at 3:07 pm
You anti-Marxist twaddle is a distraction, but you’re quite right there is no privileged intelligence associated with a naturalistic worldview. Ironically, your citations of Dawkins, Rose, etc., prove your point in the opposite way you intended. As for “bright”, I’ve always taken it as a euphemism for “retarded”.
April 21st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
That’s not really an argument, is it Ralph?
Which anti-Marxist twaddle are you talking about?
And don’t use the expression “retarded” here.
April 21st, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I don’t claim to be “bright.” But, I am a “freethinker” concerning any subject, being fully aware of my own astounding ignorance.
However, I am terribly suspicious of a spirit world, lacking sufficient experience in that realm, so far.
Hey, I did see a super large UFO once at a rather close distance, but I lack sufficient evidence for this one too; I couldn’t catch the thing or get a sample.
I often think of Plato’s story of Socrate’s Cave; me thinks I might get out of the dark in another 10,000 years or so, if the supernatural thing works out as advertised in religion — but, whatever, I, a freethinker, know something of the all-encompassing ignorance I carry in both the natural world and that mystical supernatural world.
April 21st, 2009 at 7:54 pm
I prefer to say, “I’m not necessarily an atheist; I just don’t believe in *your* God.” I think Dawkins et al’s slavish credence in Newtonian materialism is a form of religion. Modern physics is full of “supernaturual” and “mystical” elements. Few of the “naturalists” I have read and studied ever get very deep into epistemology. If they don’t comprehend how they know what they know, and the limitations thereof, what meaningful comments can they make, except to those with a common basis of superstition, and how is that any better or more rational than the local pentecostal church?
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:06 am
Oh come on, it´s just a new front for an illuminati revival! you guys just don´t get it…
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:42 am
The article was very interesting – and then came the comments. Reading through the comments indicated the level of both interest and commitment. Strangely though – the word that jumped to mind as I neared the end was – CHAOS. Why do intellectual discussion so often lead to little better than a slagging match?
For my part – I’m happy with being atheist. I don’t need to be surrounded or supported by other atheists. I don’t impose my views on anyone else – or expect them to quiz me about how I arrived at my views. I am happy for anyone else to be whatever they want to be. What I dislike intensely is those – who – under the GUISE of religion kill and maim others under the pretext of achieving something useful.
We have lots of names for people like that – but only one that matters – MURDERERS. As for us untitled and unlabeled – perhaps we should just be content to be called atheists. We KNOW who and WHAT we are.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 am
To me atheist is an anti-religion declaration, not a denial of supernatural or for that matter a naturalist declaration. Many atheists for instance would consider burning their nations flag a desecration a crime if you will. Why it’s a piece of cloth? Many atheists are pro democracy which if you are a naturalist you will verify that democacy is most un-natural in the natural world. I lean towards skeptic (NOT the “Skeptics society”) which to me means if I have proven a belief to myself I am entitled to believe it be it UFO’s, telepathy or God. However I would look with utter disdain on someone who took MY word for it and based THEIR beliefs, life etc on MY word. Which rules out anyone who takes anything at face value without proof as a mystic of sorts!
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:58 am
Doesn’t the word “bright” actually refer to the effect encountered by such an individual when confronted by a question which they have not considered? The net result being a reaction similar to that of a rabbit, caught by the headlights of an approaching car.
April 26th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Well it got his attention! smile.gif That, of course, is the point.
The only interesting criticism was his comparison with socialists … that being “bright” does not guarantee a lack of irrational exuberance akin to religious belief. True enough, but I didn’t see a claim that calling oneself Bright automatically conferred a mental health certificate. The very important difference is that secular beliefs cannot justify themselves as being unassailable by rational means.
(also http://www.the-brights.net/forums/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=9594&view=findpost&p=162928 )
– TWZ
April 28th, 2009 at 10:01 am
I’m amused by all the kerfuffle here. The problem seems to be that you don’t *like* someone else coming up with a term such as bright.
Put bluntly, the term brights is intended to be used as a civic action platform, so that all those with diverse views can at least all say “we’re brights”, and so increase the visibility of *all* people with a naturalistic worldview. Although it started in the US, there are currently thousands of people worldwide registered, and growing every day. The reason it’s so popular, is that it appeals to those people who have up until now *no interest* in any of the traditional groupings – “atheist”, “freethinker”, “naturalist”, “humanist” etc., but who see in the brights movement something that they can associate with without feeling tied down by definitions they feel have too many unwanted connotations.
By the way, as someone from the UK, I find the term naturalist amusing too, as [it]sic here it always means someone who studies plants and animals.
Anyway, please feel free to continue talking about us, it always results in more people coming to register. You’re obviously all brights yourselves, but seem to have some aversion to it ^_*
[ProfM on the Brights Forums]
(I already tried posting this but it didn’t appear. Please delete this if it results in a duplicate post)
April 28th, 2009 at 10:09 am
“The problem seems to be that you don’t *like* someone else coming up with a term such as bright.”
Well no, Peter, the problems are as stated in the article (at least they are from my perspective).
April 28th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Calling onesself and group “brights” seems to me to be self-congratulatory and sadly lame, like using the descriptive term “cuties” or “pretties.” Since the intention is to denote a counter-religious standpoint, maybe “negatories” or “disbelievers” is closer to honesty. It’s my opinion that Atheists and religionists both hold shallow unexamined beliefs rather than have the courage to dig deeper.
April 28th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Really, those issues stated ignore that the vast majority of people who have naturalistic worldviews aren’t currently associating with any of the recognised groups. All the discussion doesnt’ move forward the essential problem that atheism etc., is too intent on fighting amongst itself to present any positive image to either those people, or to the general religious public.
I’m sorry you don’t like the idea of the brights, but in our experience it’s almost entirely those who adhere to the traditional labels who find fault, whereas those who don’t take it for what it is, an opportunity to show a united front for a change.
We’re not interested in the philosophy behind atheism – we’re only interested enabling people to present civic action that will help to reduce the current problems with the way their views are seen by people in the US and elsewhere face.
It’s disappointing that atheists would still rather pick holes than help each other, but then again, I’m afraid this infighting is precisely the reason that Paul Geisert felt it necessary to create a new label for those who wanted to opt out of those tradational ways of thinking.
April 28th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Rocky, if you want to dig deeper, fine. But don’t do it as an excuse simply to try to discredit other people’s views.
The term explicitly is not intended to be counter religious. I would expect you to find out what the Brights movement actually is before making such erroneous comments.
April 28th, 2009 at 11:04 am
But, with respect Peter, you’re not making an argument there – you’re just saying you don’t think it’s worth addressing the points in the article.
“It’s disappointing that atheists would still rather pick holes than help each other”
I don’t find it disappointing. I don’t think there’s any particular reason why atheists should help each other. I’m also very suspicous of the idea of presenting a “united front” (see the stuff about secular religion in the article).
I think this conversation would be more fruitful if you had something to say about the substantive points the article makes.
April 28th, 2009 at 11:11 am
What sort of fruitful conversation do you want?
“I don’t think there’s any particular reason why atheists should help each other. I’m also very suspicous of the idea of presenting a “united front””
What is the point of me addressing any particular issues when you have already made your mind up about it?
I’ve already noted that the majority of people who join up do so because they disagree with you there, and want to be able to help each other. We’re arguing apples and oranges here, Jeremy. You’re talking philosophy, and we’re more interested in addressing people’s problems in society. My addressing the criticisms presented here is pointless, because to be honest they’re irrelevant to those real world problems.
April 28th, 2009 at 11:28 am
“What is the point of me addressing any particular issues when you have already made your mind up about it?”
Eh!?
That applies to any position that a person might hold. But it spells the end of debate, argument, etc., – all the things that I’d think would mark out a rational approach to these issues – if you’re not going to engage with someone because their position is not yours.
“because to be honest they’re irrelevant to those real world problems.”
But again that’s not an argument, it’s just an assertion. You don’t make the arguments in the article irrelevant just by asserting that they are irrelevant. A large part of the argument of the article just is about real world, pragmatic stuff – it asserts that the “Brights” idea is not only flawed philosophically, but also pragmatically.
“I’ve already noted that the majority of people who join up do so because they disagree with you there”
I’m sure that’s right!
April 28th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Well, as far as I’m aware you opened this critique of the Brights without any invitation for debate, so I don’t accept your complaint that it marks the end of debate.
I’m refraining from arguing the case for a perfectly rational reason, which is that I see no benefit to the brights in getting caught up in yet more rehashing of old arguments – all you have said has been said several times over the last 4 years by other people.
I’m more interested in why you have chosen to critique the idea at this particular moment. I can’t see any reason why you would want to point at this issue other than that it’s people who you perceive to have a position different to yourself. If you really do want a debate about it, then a less confrontational approach might be useful.
The reason that I said so much of it is irrelevant is that they don’t address why people have joined the brights idea with such enthusiasm and such large numbers. All you’re addressing is all the reasons that many atheists etc., have used, over the last 4 years, to justify why they don’t want to join.
Anyway, as to your comments about “bright” being the wrong word. That’s certainly an assertion. And many brights agree with you that it’s a silly word. But pragmatically it keeps discussions like this going, and so raises the idea in more circles than if a safer word had been chosen. Bright was chosen specifically because of it’s associations with the Enlightenment. Which is no more arrogant than calling yourself a freethinker, to my mind. But again, It really comes down to whether you like the name or not. Those who dislike it find every reason they can to say why it’s bad. Those who like it look at the positive ways to use it.
Another point you make: “What this means for the brights idea is that the criterion of a naturalistic worldview is no guarantee that people will be free of the kind of thinking which is quite reasonably described as ‘religious’. Or to put this another way, it is no guarantee that people will not be committed to beliefs, or sets of beliefs, which are beyond rational scrutiny in the same way as are many of the beliefs which are associated with theism.”
We don’t assume people will be non-religious. Only that they have worldviews that aren’t supernatural or mystical in the generally accepted meaning of those terms. I’m a Zen buddhist, which means I could be said to have a religion, although Zen would always regard it as a practice, but I certainly have no supernatural or mystical concepts that I accept. We’re neither pro or anti religion, but rather looking for ways for both naturalistic people and non-naturalistic people to co-exist without oppressing each other.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
“as far as I’m aware you opened this critique of the Brights without any invitation for debate”
Well that’s not entirely fair, since this blog has a Comments facility, and I could easily have turned it off for this post, but didn’t.
“I’m more interested in why you have chosen to critique the idea at this particular moment.”
I originally wrote this piece four or five years ago (see the link at the bottom of the article). It was actually one of the first critical pieces to come out (and it was featured on the “official” Brights web site for a while). (I’m just collecting all my writing in one place, which is why it’s ended up on here.)
“Anyway, as to your comments about “bright” being the wrong word. That’s certainly an assertion”
Well, no, because obviously I argue for it. If I just said it was the wrong word, but didn’t say why, then it would be an assertion. But I spend a good part of the article explaining why it’s the wrong word…
“Those who dislike it find every reason they can to say why it’s bad. Those who like it look at the positive ways to use it.”
You seem to be suggesting that we didn’t like it then we found reasons not to like it. But I’m telling you that in my case this is not true. I dislike it for the reasons I’ve given.
“Which is no more arrogant than calling yourself a freethinker, to my mind.”
Well I wouldn’t call myself a freethinker precisely because it does sound arrogant (as well as being absurd – none of us are freethinkers in the way implied by its usage).
“We don’t assume people will be non-religious”
Sure, but you’re only addressing the first part of the bit you quoted. My point is that the Brights do not inherit the Enlightenment tradition because many of them are just as committed to entrenched positions as their religious foes (whether you’re inclined to describe those traditions are religious or not).
April 28th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
As another Bright I will try to answer some of the questions you have.
The name Bright was inspired by the Enlightenment but we don’t claim to be it’s successors.
We don’t claim that we are non-religious (in the odd non-supernatural definition of religious that you have taken).
The Bright’s use the term Super (as in supernaturalist) for a non-bright.
As a freethinker you would seem to qualify to join the brights – if you can only overcome your aversion to the name…
April 28th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I’m a bright, and while I understand where you are coming from it seems to me that you are telling our organization why it won’t work. You may be right, and you have given a reasoned speculation, but in the end that is what it is.
Language isn’t in our control. Maybe “bright” will stick eventually, maybe it won’t. I’m not a member because I think I’m smarter than “supers” or “atheists” or “freethinkers.” I joined because I agree with their platform and have had bad experiences with trying to express myself politically inside the atheist organizations. If you want to see arrogance, you need to look no further than the sundry atheist forums out there.
As a “bright” I understand that the word “bright” is a gimmick and may not stick. But the ideas behind it are valid and I’m trying to pull my weight to make those aims a reality.
Continue to worry about what we call ourselves if you wish. I’ve moved beyond branding.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Chriseyre2000
Re the relationships between supernaturalism, religion, naturalism, etc – my argument is much more qualified about what the “Brights” take these things to be than you guys are suggesting. (See, for example, 3rd paragraph from the bottom.)
But the terminology doesn’t matter for the particular point I’m making, which is that Brights have much more in common with the religious, supernaturalists, etc., than many of them would like to think. (Please resist the temptation of trying to argue that I’m contradicting myself in claiming that the terminology both does and doesn’t matter: the point about the word “Bright” – how that functions – is separate from this issue).
April 28th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Jeremy, thanks for being patient. I wasn’t aware that you originally produced the article that long ago.
OK, I’ll take a couple more of your points. I won’t waste time on the two “what’s a bright?” stories, because that only reflects your dislike.
As to bright being seen as more intelligent etc. Well, that sounds OK in principle, but in practice most of the people across anyone who jump to this conclusion are atheists who dislike the term. These are the only one’s who insist on that definition. Most other people either don’t even make that connection, or are happy that this isn’t what it means when we explain what it is about. Do you have any hard evidence that “it’s easy” for people to jump to the conclusion as you state?
“The problem with the word ‘bright’ is that it is too easily seen as confirming this link between atheism and intellectuality”
Yes, that link between atheism and intellectuality is a real problem for atheism. Do you really think that “bright” is going to change that? It’s a problem that atheism created, so don’t offload it onto this new term quite so glibly, It’s the main reason that we see so many people joining up, because when people read the website they see that we’re not interested in intellectualism, but in civic action. People who don’t do religion etc., are on the whole cheesed off with atheist intellectualism, and come to us instead. The link is your problem, you deal with it.
” To start with, there is the obvious point that people are more likely to be receptive to new ideas if they feel that they are being treated with respect.” We make a point of stating that we are not anti-religious, and that all we look for is equality of civic input for our worldviews. The Brights Movement has no interest in attacking religion, even though individual brights may feel this something they have to do. If you visited the forums right now, you’d find several Christians posting there and on the whole feeling quite comfortable and also of the same mind as us about working for this secular equality.
“It is extremely easy – and, it must be said, very tempting – to parody the whole idea of a brights movement.” It’s easy to parody anything. But I’d love to see us parodied, it would only make more people come to look and see what we’re really talking about. Perhaps XKCD could do something about us.
“The brights movement will find itself transmogrified into a ‘We’re smarter than you’ movement. ” Like atheism has, you mean?
” Perhaps the most interesting of these has to do with what appears to be an unspoken assumption about people with a naturalistic worldview.
The assumption seems to be that the rejection of supernaturalism is enough to qualify someone as a person without religion.”
This is just a false claim. We’re not interested in whether someone has a religion or not. Even Richard Dawkins claims to be a cultural Christian. I already said I practice Zen, and so do a few other Brights I know. The point is that all we’re interested in is being an umbrella for everyone who has a naturalistic worldview, as opposed to a supernaturalistic worldview. But we make no claims for the supremacy of one over the other. All we seek is equality in the civic sphere of influence.
“This claim is only unproblematic if one defines religion as involving supernatural beliefs. However, there is at least an argument that the sphere of the religious can be extended to include aspects of the secular world.”
It’s clear that religion means many things, including purely secular systems that people adhere to as a way of making sense of life. Zen could be seen as one of those. We are very clear that we don’t assume anything more than that a bright doesn’t have supernatural and mystical beliefs.
“If one accepts this conception, then there are secular phenomena which qualify as sacred. “, Yes, I agree. Another objection that you’ve missed is that assumption that “bright” equates to moral, good, ethical etc. We don’t make that claim. Within the definition of bright, a serial killer could easily be a bright. We would hope that most brights “take principled action”, but we can’t police that any more than anyone can police atheism or freethinkery.
“It is certainly going to contain some odd bedfellows.”
Indeed. Paul Geisert called that ‘brights of many stripes’ in a recent article.
“Scientific atheists and Marxist atheists will be united in thinking that there is definitely no god, but they’ll fight like cats and dogs over the fate of the bourgeoisie. The agnostics will irritate both groups by sitting on the fence, whilst freethinkers drive themselves crazy trying to find a viewpoint unique to themselves. The skeptics will watch the whole thing from afar with slightly cynical smiles, and the postmodernists will talk past themselves, as per usual. As for the rest of the world? They won’t see past the name. And laughter and parody will be the result. Therefore, one can only hope that the ‘bright’ meme fails on its evolutionary journey.”
Except they don’t tend to. Most people who join seem to co-exist perfectly happily. Although I suspect that’s because the marxists and other hardliners are too busy not joining but instead arguing how bad it all is.
“As for the rest of the world? They won’t see past the name. And laughter and parody will be the result. Therefore, one can only hope that the ‘bright’ meme fails on its evolutionary journey.”
Again, from our experience, the rest of the world, those who wouldn’t touch the traditional names with a barge-pole, are happily becoming brights in large numbers, because we’re different to those traditional groups.
It still comes down to a single issue – the term bright gives people a means of working together to change society’s attitudes towards the non-religious, regardless of what tradition they do or don’t adhere to. Most people understand that – it seems to be only the hardline atheists who stand on the outside and complain that they don’t like it. I don’t find that last attitude a very rational thing to be doing.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Peter
Thanks for that. I will respond properly, but I need to do a couple of other things first. (I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you!).
April 28th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
“But the terminology doesn’t matter for the particular point I’m making, which is that Brights have much more in common with the religious, supernaturalists, etc., than many of them would like to think.”We are very aware of that. As far as we can see, we tend to have more in common with moderate religious people than with hardline atheists etc. How do you suggest that we can arrive at civic equality if we don’t share certain values with the people we are trying to be equal with? You seem to imply that there’s something wrong with having things in common with religious people – would that be true to say?
Your comment does however raise one important point. As far as many of us can see, it’s the hardliners on both sides who cause the real rift and unbalance.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Response to Peter Deeks: If you parse the definitions, anybody who absolutely denies the existence of any “god” is denying the existence of himself (or herself). The bottom line is: what is the source of your experience? What do you know for sure? Anybody shallow enough to have missed this essential question is certainly not “bright.”
April 28th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Who is absolutely denying the existence of any “god”?
The bottom line is “Who am I”.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Peter Deeks: “Who is absolutely denying the existence of any ‘god’?”
Atheists, no? “brights?”
“The bottom line is ‘Who am I’.”
Or perhaps, “what?” or “is there a self?”
April 28th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
A further question: “Why am I the only correspondent here with a picture ?”
April 28th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Peter: As I mention in the first comment in this long thread, when I first heard the term “bright”, I assumed that Dennett meant that atheists or naturalists were more intelligent than religious believers. As a result, I decided not to read the book. Since the word “bright” is normally used to refer to a person of above average intelligence, I think that my believing that Dennett means that atheists or naturalists are more intelligent was a mistake that would be frequent. It would be as if I suggest forming a “gay club” and find it strange that most people don’t realize that it is a club for happy people, not for homosexuals.
April 28th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Rocky:
“What is the source of your experience?, What do you know for sure”.
Chuckle.
We who haunt mostly the Science and Philosophy forums on the-brights.net argue over such issues endlessly.
Cartesian dualism has been dead for a long time. God and or some mystical experience to “explain” the self and experience is unnecessary. Dan Dennett’s “Consciousness Explained” went a long way towards actually explaining much it terms of mundane processes for those who understand what he’s written.
– TWZ
April 29th, 2009 at 2:58 am
Amos, your example is a little strange, as “gay” was co-opted by the homosexual community in the same way we are co-opting the word bright. In your example you assume the new usage of gay is the norm, but that our usage of bright can’t become the norm because it’s not the norm. I don’t see the logic in that.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:02 am
Rocky, “is there a self” an interesting question, because you really do have to ask “who is asking?”.
April 29th, 2009 at 7:16 am
No, today the usual use of the word “bright” signifies “highly intelligent”. The usual use of the word “gay” signifies “homosexual”. So if I call a group “the gay club”, I can assume that most people will see it as a group of homosexuals, not as a group of happy people. Frankly, I suspect that the “brights” are playing a double game: they advertise themselves as being highly intelligent through the fact that they well know that most people will read the word “bright” in its usual sense, “highly intelligent,” but when challenged, plead innocence, saying that they intent a different meaning. Shifty.
April 29th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Amos, I’m disappointed that you see fit to make such an unpleasant accusation. I feel it reflects badly upon your integrity. Whatever concerns you may have in no way justifies you impugning the name of honest people who are trying to help others.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
—-
Frankly, I suspect that the “brights” are playing a double game: they advertise themselves as being highly intelligent through the fact that they well know that most people will read the word “bright” in its usual sense, …
—
Well we brights generally expect people to be “bright” enough to see that there are multiple intentions in the choice of word. It’s not like we are hiding the dictionary from everyone or something. The slight whiff of arrogance and thus controversy is valuable in making the word in its new connotation memorable.
But choosing ANY word with a positive interpretation would have the same result. You didn’t really expect us to choose a negative word to denote ourselves, did you?
“Shifty” No, just bright.
– TWZ
April 30th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Colonel Zen: I appreciate your frankness. No, I don’t expect anyone to choose a negative word to denote him or herself. The “whiff of arrogance” turns me off, but I sure that it may attract some people. In the name of peace, I’ll change the word “shifty” to “clever”. Shalom, Amos
April 30th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Amos, it certainly was a clever move. It was your use of “shifty”, as if it were underhanded, that I objected to.
Even so, it still seems to be only those who start out with a dislike who insist on bringing the “intelligent” meaning of “bright” to prominence, and then refusing to let go of it. Other people tend to be more interested in what brights are like as people and rapidly find that we don’t assume we are more intelligent, and so dismiss this meaning from their understanding of it. I personally prefer the company of the brights I know because on the whole they put their ideological differences to one side and get on with being friendly. It’s the “whiff of arrogance” that I get from much atheist discussion that put me off calling myself one for most of my 53 years. I didn’t start calling myself and atheist until I’d come across the Brights and found that a lot of atheists were actually nice people.
August 25th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
“To be an atheist in the United States – and also in some ways in the United Kingdom – is to set oneself against the dominant culture.”
For the record, this is most certainly NOT the case in British universities, where an atheist or agnostic conventional wisdom rules supreme, sometimes quite arrogantly. I know quite a few practicing Christians working in science faculties of Russell group universities, not one of whom has “come out” to his or her colleagues. Love of God is the love that dare not speak its name in contemporary British higher education.
August 25th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
It’s true not only of British university life, but also very much within the serious media, such as the BBC, and also in much of politics, in both of which secular thought is dominant. BBC Radio 4 broadcasts overt secular and atheist comment with impunity.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:06 am
Yawn? This is NOT a very BRIGHT argument either way definitely not a BRIGHT forum for any body who thinks. Just a place for self promotion. Should rename it the Peter and Admin Forum…sheesh!
August 26th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Jeeze, why all the discussion over a single word? Why is it so important to label? Personally, I would not waste one second of my brain’s time working on that one.
To me, it is easy. Over 35 years ago I dumped my world view — all of it. Since, I have been developing one of my own (none of that inherited crap). And, I try extremely hard to check out the rationality and reality of anything I do add; some with an asterisk, that, when constructed upon a preponderance of evidence, patiently waits for more.
My race now is the human race; my class is the human class; my religion is reality as best I can determine it, based only upon evidence from the natural world — there is none other in the natural world.
And under no conditions will I enslave or surrender my own intellect to a shaman, no matter how ordained.
Terry
August 27th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Terry, The discussion comes from the fact that the choice of that single word spoke volumes and that everybody seems to have a dog in this race.
The invitation is to becomes ones own Shaman.
August 28th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Hi Rocky,
Since language is so obstinate and short sighted, I use the word “shaman” as a source of information which is used by one entity to capture once-independent intellects for his, her, or its own purposes. But, since, in the end, to protect its place in society or spiritualized knowledge, it will eventually turn to incredibly malicious means for that purpose (think fear and hell, etc.)
The last thing I want to be is my own shaman. I suppose, if I had to choose a word from our shortened language for the purpose of the “brights,” I would have preferred the words “freedom” or “liberty.” Although, it would probably be better to create a word and definition, with the definition so narrow in scope, such arguments about what the word implies, in so many different minds, would be ridiculous.
Oh yes, eventually, the philosopher becomes the shaman. And the beautiful thing about philosophical argument is: there is unlimited room for an unlimited number of shamans — sort of an equal opportunity black hole.
In modern times, the practice is not personally so dangerous as it was, for instance, during the Age of Darkness (absolutism by Faith). Just think, before that time, philosophy argument was a source of grand public entertainment — well, except for a cup of hemlock or two.
Now, of course, not many ordinary human minds can travel that journey. Intellectual laziness is king now — absolutism by Faith is once again on the march.
Terry
August 29th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Terry, I use the term as a synonym for the American Indian concept of a “Medicine Man,” one who has developed familiarity with the future here-and-now event of his own inevitable demise until it has become a Philosopher’s Stone, a test for Truth and Integrity in all things. When there is no doubt that the only fact is ones own experience and all other “facts” are merely theories, including the existence of “rest of the world,” life becomes this test. Ones choices in the face of this great unknowing define one. There’s an enormous difference between not knowing and knowing that you don’t know. This is the territory the Shaman traverses, investigates and defines.