Are you a bright?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

No, I don’t identify myself as a bright or a super

I'm a Me!

I like to think for myself and more importantly be myself...kinda hard to do when adopting labels...I can and will change my mind and therefore refuse to adopt titles which impede said change and impose the title of hypocrate upon my person due to the afforementioned changes

Originally Posted by Moontanman

While I am a registered "Bright" I to have problems with labels. I am not comfortable with any label, labels are just a way to categorize people. …

I think one of the greatest challenges faced by proponents of the bright movement is precisely the feeling expressed in these posts – the sort of skeptical, indepent-thinking people who the movement hope to enlist are, by nature, not “joiners”. The challenge is somewhat akin to an exercise in cat herding.

Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

"Yes, I’m a registered bright"
"Yes, I’m a bright, but haven’t registered with any organizing body or constituency " I have to wonder how many of the votes for these two have more to do with the positive assumed nature of the word "bright" than the assigned meaning of "bright" in this thread.

I’d hope anyone calling her or himself a bright, and expecially anyone having actually registered via the website, would have at least read the first paragraph of The Brights' Net - Home Page:

• A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
• A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
• The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview

Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

I consider myself a "bright" (Even "super"on occasion on those rare days when I actually kinda like myself) person Ie. intelligent, smart, etc.etc. but not a "bright" (or super) within the confines of this thread.

Again, key to the bright movement self definition is that “a bright” is not “a smart person”, but a person with the above worldview.

This brings up another problem faced by the movement: its central terms – “bright” and “super” – already have well-defined common meanings. If you ask someone at random “are you a bright?”, you’ll more likely get an answer like “yeah, most people think I’m pretty smart” or “I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I get the job done” than one based on the Brights’ Net definition.

It’s enough to make you wonder why Paul Geisert, who coined the term “bright” and with others launched the website in 2003, decide on this term. The short explanation is that he took his model from the term “gay”, which he felt supplanted terms such as “homosexual” and “queer” in the mid 20th century in a beneficial way. Rather than description someone who does not believe in the supernatural as “an atheist” or “godless”, which implies that they are lacking something, “bright” focuses on the positive quality of “having a naturalistic worldview”. This analogy is widely known: it’s not unusual to hear people describe a public announcement of being a bright as a “coming out.”

Giesert and others are attempting social-linguistic change in the long term. the key assumptions here are that a large minority, or even a majority, of people at present really do not, on a practical level, believe in the supernatural, but are reluctant to admit it because of fear of social stigma, and that if these people perceived such a worldview as more “respectable”, the worldview would become dominant, affecting profound social change.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

-C.D.- Again, key to the bright movement self definition is that “a bright” is not “a smart person”, but a person with the above worldview.

This brings up another problem faced by the movement: its central terms – “bright” and “super” – already have well-defined common meanings.

My point exactly. (see below)

-D.d.- I have to wonder how many of the votes for these two have more to do with the positive assumed nature of the word "bright" than the assigned meaning of "bright" in this thread.

-C.D.- The short explanation is that he took his model from the term “gay”, which
he felt supplanted terms such as “homosexual” and “queer” in the mid 20th century in a beneficial way.

In which case he aparently unaware that "gay" is just as derogatory as queer to a great many "straight" persons. Ie. "that's so gay"

-C.D.-“having a naturalistic worldview”.

Perhaps they should have used "naturalist" instead of bright and "hopeful" for those that believe in more fanciful things.

-C.D.- a large minority, or even a majority, of people at present really do not, on a practical level, believe in the supernatural, but are reluctant to admit it because of fear of social stigma,

I believe it has more to do with unanswered questions and the fear we all instintively have of death. It brings comfort to "know" that death isn't the end but merely the beginning of a better existence. (Vs you're dead.... you are lunch for worms.....everyone you knew and loved that died is worm food nothing more...you'll never ever see or talk to them again.)

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Woopsies!!!!!!!!!

I just screwed up the poll stats. After entering myself as a "bright", I visited the Brights Home Page, and registered myself. Now, I am a "Bright"!!

Hurrah! Now I am somebody!

I'm guilty(also, somebody!!! ) too; I just registered. I was previously skeptical of this sort of thing for the obvious reasons mentioned previously in this thread(labeling and such), but I think it is of some social value to stand up and have our heads counted.

Hurrah indeed!

[coldcreation]

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that Bright is a synonym for atheist.

I read somewhere that there are between 70 and 90% of the world population that do not believe in god, i.e., about 3/4 of people in this world are atheist (or agnostic). In another way, out of about 6.7 billion living on earth over 5 billion of them have a naturalist world-view (in accord with the definition of Bright).

Here, however, the signals are mixed.

It is difficult to quantify the number of atheists in the world. Respondents to religious-belief polls may define "atheism" differently or draw different distinctions between atheism, non-religious beliefs, and non-theistic religious and spiritual beliefs.[94] In addition, people in some regions of the world refrain from reporting themselves as atheists to avoid social stigma, discrimination, and persecution. A 2005 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica finds that the non-religious make up about 11.9% of the world's population, and atheists about 2.3%. This figure does not include those who follow atheistic religions, such as some Buddhists....

[Check this out] Frank Sulloway of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Michael Shermer of California State University conducted a study which found in their polling sample of "credentialed" U.S. adults (12% had Ph.Ds and 62% were college graduates) 64% believed in God, and there was a correlation indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level.[99] An inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002, according to an article in Mensa Magazine.

Whatever the exact figure of atheists (potential Brights), they represent a large chunk demographically.

Is it really essential that (a) they [atheists] form a group to counter those who believe in metaphysical entities or forces, that (b) a new name (Bright) be adopted when there already exists a term to describe those who have a naturalistic stance (a world-view free of the supernatural), or even that (c) they form a group at all? Do we [atheists] really need to be part of a group (the Brights) to avoid social stigma, discrimination, and persecution?

I don't think so.



CC

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that Bright is a synonym for atheist.

I disagree. To be a synonym means the terms are interchangeable and these are not. I think it is reasonable to say that brights are atheists but not that atheists are brights. I have heard of such things as spiritual atheists and they would not fit the definition of brights. There are other atheists as well that do not totally reject the supernatural.

I would say the closest synonym of atheist is nontheist since a·theist literally means not·theist, nothing more, nothing less.

[Moontanman]

Perhaps they should have used "naturalist" instead of bright and "hopeful" for those that believe in more fanciful things.

Isn't naturalist another name for nudest?

[Moontanman]

[quote]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that Bright is a synonym for atheist.

Where did you part your squad car CC?

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Where did you part your squad car CC?

I promise you a police car on every sidewalk.
(Mayor Marion Barry quote)



CC

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by C1ay

I disagree. To be a synonym means the terms are interchangeable and these are not. I think it is reasonable to say that brights are atheists but not that atheists are brights.

True. I for one, am an atheist but not a bright (at least not signed up yet).

Originally Posted by C1ay

I have heard of such things as spiritual atheists and they would not fit the definition of brights. There are other atheists as well that do not totally reject the supernatural.

There are differing interpretations of what it is to be an atheist, for sure. My interpretation is simple: an atheist does not believe in god. It follows that an atheist world-view is free of supernatural or mystical forces, and entities. Thus by definition, an atheist is a bright. A "spiritual atheist" is an oxymoron. (But I guess that depends on your definition of spiritual).

Originally Posted by C1ay

I would say the closest synonym of atheist is nontheist since a·theist literally means not·theist, nothing more, nothing less.

You're either an atheist, or your not. Certainly an agnostic would not qualify as being a bright, since there is always a lingering doubt. Richard Dawkins, the goes scientist that he is, classifies himself in category 6 (6.8 more or less) on a scale of 1 - 7, where 7 is a 100% atheist. I'm not sure he would qualify as a bright.

YouTube - Richard Dawkins - Atheism and Faith

I am a 7 on the same scale (for a variety of reasons beyond the scope of this thread).

In other words I am a bright (or at least I could be). But I am already an atheist. Do I need to be both? I don't think so; even thought the bright initiative may be a good one.

YouTube - Atheism question

CC

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

There are differing interpretations of what it is to be an atheist, for sure. My interpretation is simple: an atheist does not believe in god. It follows that an atheist world-view is free of supernatural or mystical forces, and entities. Thus by definition, an atheist is a bright. A "spiritual atheist" is an oxymoron. (But I guess that depends on your definition of spiritual).

An atheist does not believe in a god/gods. Many of them might still believe in genies, spirits, souls, or whatever else(however unlikely). An atheist is not by definition a bright, although they may be.
Also, search "spiritual atheist" or something similar in google, there are many people identifying as such. I assume many Buddhists would qualify as spiritual atheists, but not brights or Brights.

Originally Posted by coldcreation

You're either an atheist, or your not. Certainly an agnostic would not qualify as being a bright, since there is always a lingering doubt. Richard Dawkins, the goes scientist that he is, classifies himself in category 6 (6.8 more or less) on a scale of 1 - 7, where 7 is a 100% atheist. I'm not sure he would qualify as a bright.

I am a 7 on the same scale (for a variety of reasons beyond the scope of this thread).

I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but Richard Dawkins is a well-known Bright and advocate of the movement; he would certainly qualify as one if anyone would, and I would trust him to be an authority how he should be identified.
An article on the Brights movement by Dawkins on Edge.com(originally published in The Guardian):
THE THIRD CULTURE - BRIGHT!!

Prominent evolutionary scientists Steven Pinker and Dan Dennett are also enthusiastic Brights, and would certainly fall on the 6.9999.../7 scale(Teapot Agnostics, if you will).

Originally Posted by coldcreation

In other words I am a bright (or at least I could be). But I am already an atheist. Do I need to be both? I don't think so; even thought the bright initiative may be a good one.

I agree, and I think most Brights would agree on this point as well. I would be surprised to see a Bright claiming that identifying as a Bright is a necessity, and I would be interested in any arguments an atheist would make against the Brights movement(beyond it being stupid/useless/futile, as in being harmful or negative in some way). I believe I've read PZ Myers expressing distaste regarding the movement, but I don't remember what specific reasons he gave or where I read it.
I think Steven Pinker has a pretty reasonable view on the subject:

Originally Posted by Pinker

Regarding "Brights" -- I think it is wonderful. A euphemism, yes, and one that will never catch on as "gay" did (I suspect), but the fact that it has been consciously been proposed (partly tongue-in-cheek) as a euphemism will call attention to the phenomenon that "atheist" has a negative connotation among many. And of course the connection with intelligence is a sly way of saying that it tends to be educated people who decide to be atheists.