Showing posts with label the brights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the brights. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

What is a Bright? The same as an Atheist?

Very annoyed with the Founding Brights

Worldwide Brights Meetup Message Board

Wendell
isaone
Nashville, TN
15th Post

Arrgh! I just read this article by the 'founders' http://www.stnews.org... and at the risk of being disloyal I completely disagree with the manner in which they attempt to avoid the fact that by definition a Bright must be an Atheist unless you somehow manage to define the term God being nothing Supernatural. They state
A common misconception is that brights are atheists.
Then later
the network has Buddhists, Druids, pantheists, transhumanists, Unitarians, Wiccans and Yogis. A gamut of folks ? Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Episcopalians, Muslims ? uphold some of a religion?s cultural aspects but not its supernaturalism. There are plenty of ?nones? ? the individuals who, when confronted by a questionnaire that asks, ?Religion?? will state, ?None.? The naturalistic worldview embraces a broad civic arena.
This is just the kind of linguistic gymnastics that annoys me when often used by Theists. They list various belief labels and religions to imply that a person who is one of those must not be an Atheist but this is by no means true yet they ignore the actual definitions of the terms Bright and Atheist themselves. I hope that they are doing this in order to try to avoid the equating of Bright with Atheist and not because they are self deluded enough to actually believe what they are saying. They do mention in the article the correct approach which is to emphasis that Brights are actually a subset of Atheists
brights may be atheists, atheists who have supernatural beliefs in astrology or who wear magnets to ward off disease are not brights.

If this level of Intelletual Dishonesty is what is required to get the movement off the ground I may have to resign my commission. I have wrtitten them on this. I await their reply.

Edited by Wendell on Sep 28, 2006 at 2:37 AM

Kristine



Wendell
isaone
Nashville, TN
20th Post

I was amazed to find that the people on the thread where I posted this question for the most part simply either do not think it is important or disagree with me. The discussion on the thread went back and forth and around and around. if you are interested it is here. In short they do not agree with my position that it is important that we actually define who we are. They seem to want to avoid the entire questions of defining "Naturalistic" (which I admit is a minefield). They also are very very very sensitive about the idea that the Brights are just another name for atheists (which is not my position at all, I merely believe that by definition a Bright must be an atheist). I understand the need to create a new term not contaminated with the connotations of 'atheist' but I am not willing to do it at the risk of not even understanding who we are. I also still feel that it is much like the ID believers who refuse to take a stance on the age of the earth (8,000 years vs 4.5 billion) because they do not want to lose either of the main groups of believers who otherwise support them.

If we are not willing to define who we are I think we water down our message to the extent that we will fail in acheiving anything.
Akkdio
user 2585827
Baltimore, MD
1st Post

Hmmm. I don't like the word atheist either but agree that it is time the people "come out" about their beliefs. How many can say "I don't believe in God" out loud. Ok. Now try it in front of your Mom/patriarchal figure that grips their heart in silent prayer. Its personal and it is hard but we must encourage ourselves and others to do it. I am looking for an organization that puts reason first and take the Sam Harris view that you must have good reasons... to believe what you do. My definition of good is evolving but it should be based on our well honed scientific process for theory. That would be a start. As to linguistic gymnastics... Is there such a group call The Reasonists? If there is I apologize but I think that would be a good name for a group that can develop or join others in the pursuit of reason.

With Reason,

Andrew
Brent Gulanowski
user 2834703
Toronto, ON
1st Post

You should think about this more and stop being so partisan. There's no necessity to think that a belief in God is a belief in the supernatural, because it is not necessary for God to be supernatural, depending on your definition of God. And, unfortunately for your argument, there is no strict definition for God. Thus, belief in god, disbelief in god, or disinterest in god has no bearing on whether an individual believes in the supernatural.

Personally, I think the anti-religious focus on God is totally off-base. The problem with supernaturalism is not God, but spirit, including the soul, angels, devils, or any other kind of invisible, conscious being (unseen agency) which has the power to influence the material world and human affairs. Granted, by far the majority of believers see God in this way, but not all.

Anti-religion efforts should be on the rejection of belief in the soul and life-after-death. God is irrelevant. No soul, no heaven or hell or otherwise, and religion falls apart. You can still have religion and supernaturalism without God. So you are wasting your time on this crusade.
Brent Gulanowski
user 2834703
Toronto, ON
2nd Post

They do mention in the article the correct approach which is to emphasis that Brights are actually a subset of Atheists
brights may be atheists, atheists who have supernatural beliefs in astrology or who wear magnets to ward off disease are not brights.

I think you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about basic set theory. They are not describing a sub-set, according to your excerpt, but an intersection of two sets (atheists and brights). Some brights are atheists, some atheists are brights. Their point, which you've utterly missed, is that some atheists may still be supernaturalists, too, in which case, they aren't brights.
Leo
Leo123
Chicago, IL
40th Post

To the last poster: Sorry dont see it your way at all, if one is an Atheist, they dont believe in astrology, nor god or anything supernatural. Every act or thing that happens has a reason and a scientific explaination, just because mankind is too stupid to know how it works, dont make it supernatural, their is an explaination.

I AM AN ATHEIST, go ahead and say it, say it again and again. Atheism is FREEDOM, true freedom from religion, freedom from the shackels that bind faithers together. All faithers are blind to the truth, through fear or ignorance, or greed.

Theist is a person with belief in a god, Atheist is a person without belief in a god. An Atheist knows there is no god, and can actually prove it.

The term god has been changing over the years, some now define it as a binding force of all living things. Thank you Steven Speilberg for Star Wars and the Farse, I mean Force. Whether there is energy that binds all living things together in some way does not create a god, it would be some sort of physics.

A god is an entity that has absolute control of its enviroment, and command of all that exists. In more ancient times, gods were prioritized, having powers over different elements of existance.

If in fact some creature created man, they are not gods, they are but creatures like man that believe in science and work it for either pleasure, entertainment, or for fact finding. If we were created, our creators left long ago, or are just sitting back and laughing at us struggle with the pety concepts we let rule our logical brains ...

I AM AN ATHEIST, I KNOW there is no god, and can prove it, I will not go away ...

Sunday, October 15, 2006

British Humanist Association

I visited the BHA website and extracted this stuff from it:-

The British Humanist Association

Atheist? Agnostic? Not religious?
Culturally Christian (you tick the box but don't believe)?

Then You're Probably a Humanist Already
Try Our Test &
Join the British Humanist Association Today!

The BHA is the largest organisation in the UK supporting and representing the non-religious and campaigning for a secular society.

The Test: Are you a Humanist?
I scored mostly Ds with a few Cs. I am a humanist!

Humanism

Humanism is the belief that we can live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs. Humanists make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values. We seek to make the best of the one life we have by creating meaning and purpose for ourselves. We take responsibility for our actions and work with others for the common good.


What humanists believe

Humanism is an approach to life based on humanity and reason - humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone. Our decisions are based on the available evidence and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions, not on any dogma or sacred text.

Humanism encompasses atheism and agnosticism ‑ but is an active and ethical philosophy far greater than these negative responses to religion.

Humanists believe in individual rights and freedoms ‑ but believe that individual responsibility, social cooperation and mutual respect are just as important.

Humanists believe that people can and will continue to find solutions to the world's
problems ‑ so that quality of life can be improved for everyone.

Humanists are positive ‑ gaining inspiration from our lives, art and culture, and a rich natural world.

Humanists believe that
we have only one life ‑ it is our responsibility to make it a good life, and to live it to the full.


Humanists - who are they?

At least 15.5% of the population is non-religious according to the 2001 census, making this the second largest "belief" group in the UK. Other surveys on religious belief in Britain have found 30 - 40% (and 65% of young people) declaring themselves atheists or agnostics. A Home Office survey (2004) found almost 22% of no faith, and that religion played little part in the lives of most of those calling themselves Christians. Many people, even if they do not call themselves humanists, live their lives by the principles outlined above, and many thousands use the services of the British Humanist Association every year; organised Humanism is the tip of a very large iceberg.

More statistics on religion and belief here .

BHA Vice-President Claire Rayner says: "I was a humanist without knowing it for many years before I found the Association - when I did, it was like finding a sort of home. Here were people with a range of views that matched my own, who shared my respect for life in all its forms, and who, above all, did not try to bully other people to follow their beliefs".

To find out more about the work of the BHA click here , and see also Why join?


Want to know more about Humanism?

Humanism, a brief introduction for students of all ages

Humanist Philosophers ' Group What is Humanism? (BHA, 2002, buy it here ) - a pamphlet from the Humanist Philosophers' Group makes the case for Humanism. Read an extract .

So you think you can live without God? - members of the Humanist Philosophers' Group answer some common questions and challenges.

Click here for a list of distinguished supporters of Humanism.

"Who needs God?" - an Independent on Sunday feature about Humanism and the BHA.

Non-religious beliefs - some definitions and distictions. What's the difference between an atheist, an agnostic and a humanist, for example?

What do humanists mean by "spirituality" ?

Humanists talking - individual humanists talk about their lives and beliefs.

Humanist "Thoughts for the Day " - short talks showing what humanists can do when asked for a "thought".

Barbara Smoker Humanism (BHA, buy it here ) - a useful and accessible introduction to humanist ideas and history.

Richard Norman On Humanism (Routledge, 2004) - an accessible and powerful defence of humanist ideas and ethics, written by a humanist philosopher. Buy it here .

Jim Herrick Humanism - an Introduction - Humanism for the general reader. Buy it here .

Hobson & Jenkins Modern Humanism - answers to some of the basic questions of life from a humanist perspective. Buy it here

A Short Course on Humanism (BHA, buy it here ), suitable for adults who think they may be humanists and groups that would like to study and discuss Humanism.

Are you a humanist? This quiz will help you decide!

Thinking About Death - read the introduction to the Humanist Philosophers' Group book of essays based on their 2002 conference, and buy the book by phoning 020 7079 3580.

Thinking about Ethics - an account of where humanists think moral values come from, and the implications.

Discussions of philosophical, ethical and social issues outline how humanists approach a range of issues and provide discussion questions and further reading for students of all ages. (Please note that these are not definitive statements about what all humanist think or BHA policy.)

Richard Robinson An Atheist's Values - long out of print, this excellent defence of humanist morality and critique of "Christian values" can be read at http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/athval0.htm

Humanist ideas have a long history - read about it here . You can also read extracts from humanist writers past and present in A Humanist Anthology (edited by Jim Herrick and Margaret Knight, RPA, buy it here ), and E M Forster's What I believe (BHA, buy it here ).

Are your ideas on God, religion and morality philosophically consistent? Try Battlefield God and other philosophical games at The Philosophers' Magazine website .

The UK based Humanists website carries information about the humanist ethical tradition, news, answers to common questions, and jokes.

About the BHA

Our Vision
A world without religious privilege or discrimination, where people are free to live good lives on the basis of reason, experience and shared human values.

Our Mission
The British Humanist Association exists to promote Humanism and support and represent people who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs.

The British Humanist Association (BHA)
represents the interests of the large and growing population of ethically concerned but non-religious people in the UK – helping to set the agenda for debate. Committed to human rights, democracy, equality and mutual respect, the BHA works for an open and inclusive society with freedom of belief and speech, and for an end to the privileged position of religion – and Christianity in particular – in law, education, broadcasting and wherever else it occurs.

The BHA is renowned for its humanist funerals, weddings, baby-namings and other non-religious ceremonies. These meet a very real need in the community, and the rapidly growing demand for high quality ceremonies keeps our network of trained and accredited officiants extremely busy. Find out more here.

We also help humanists and other non-religious people to gain confidence in their beliefs (see Humanism) and build a foundation from which to live their lives with integrity. The BHA supports networks for families, teachers and others to share ideas and experience and provide mutual support. Local humanist groups provide opportunities for humanists to meet like-minded people for lectures, discussions and social activities. We lobby for the inclusion of Humanism in the school curriculum so that all pupils have the opportunity to learn about it, and provide educational resources for schools and students of all ages. Our contribution to improvements in religious education is widely recognised.

BHA policies are based on humanist principles and informed by our members and supporters, who include eminent authorities in many fields. With the support of its Humanist Philosophers’’ Group, scientists and other experts, the BHA contributes to debate on a wide range of ethical issues from sex education to gene therapy, and acts as a unique watchdog and lobbying organisation. Click here to see some of our submissions and briefings on human rights, social and ethical issues.

With a mixture of: high profile campaigns; submissions to Government, e.g. in proposed legislation; evidence to official enquiries, e.g. on the ethics of genetic research; liaison with humanists in Parliament; briefing and lobbying, the BHA campaigns for:

· freedom of belief and respect for the non-religious, including recognition of humanist views on a wide range of issue;

· an end to discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, whether in marriage law, the workplace, or the provision of public services;

· an end to religious privilege;

· inclusive schools where children with parents of all faiths and none learn to understand and respect each other, instead of being segregated in the growing number of faith and sectarian schools;

· impartial, fair and balanced education about religion and beliefs, with an emphasis on shared human values;

· school assemblies without religious worship.


For an "independent" view of the BHA and our activities, see "Who needs God? " - an Independent on Sunday article which includes interviews with our Executive Director, Hanne Stinson. ceremonies officiant Caroline Black, and philosop
her A C Grayling.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

The Brights


Mynga Futrell defined a bright to be "a person whose worldview is naturalistic—free of supernatural and mystical elements. A bright's ethics and actions are based on a naturalistic worldview."

So by this definition .... I am a Bright.

I first heard of this term from a Radio 4 talk with Daniel Dennett in 2006.

The brights movement was started by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in 2003 to provide a positive-sounding umbrella term to describe various types of people who have a naturalistic worldview, without casting that worldview as a negative response to religion (as the terms "atheist", "infidel" or "non-believer" may be taken to do).

More information on The Brights:




Richard Dawkins wrote an article on Brights in Wired "Religion be damned" (edited)
"Like the word "Gay", bright is intended to come to the aid of another beleaguered community in the US: those who, in the most religiose country in the Western world, have no religion, who are variously labeled atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, philosophical naturalists, secularists, or humanists. I am a bright. You are (quite probably) a bright. Most of the people I know are brights. The majority of scientists are brights. Presumably there are lots of closet brights in Congress, but they dare not come out. Notice from these examples that the word is a noun, not an adjective. We brights are not claiming to be bright (meaning clever, intelligent), any more than gays claim to be gay (meaning joyful, carefree). Whether there is a statistical tendency for brights (noun) to be bright (adjective) is a matter for research. I would dearly like to see such research undertaken, and I know the result I am betting on, but it is no part of the definition of the noun. So, the bright meme is launched. Will it spread, like gay, and basically, and the backward baseball cap? Or will it nose-dive into the sand? I'm hoping it will take off. I'm even betting that it will, despite the hostility of those who misunderstand the humble noun as an arrogant adjective, and those who, notwithstanding the success of gay, resent all such coinings out of hand. But mostly, I am simply curious, as a disinterested scientist, to see what will happen."

Richard Dawkins in The Guardian

Language can help to shape the way we think about the world. Richard Dawkins welcomes an attempt to raise consciousness about atheism by co-opting a word with cheerful associations. Children are too young to know their religious opinions. Just as you can't vote until you are 18, you should be free to choose your own cosmology and ethics without society's impertinent presumption that you will automatically inherit your parents'. We'd be aghast to be told of a Leninist child or a neo-conservative child or a Hayekian monetarist child. So isn't it a kind of child abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child? Especially in Northern Ireland and Glasgow where such labels, handed down over generations, have divided neighbourhoods for centuries and can even amount to a death warrant?

Catholic child? Flinch. Protestant child? Squirm. Muslim child? Shudder. Everybody's consciousness should be raised to this level. Occasionally a euphemism is needed, and I suggest "Child of Jewish (etc) parents". When you come down to it, that's all we are really talking about anyway. Just as the upside-down (northern hemisphere chauvinism again: flinch!) map from New Zealand raises consciousness about a geographical truth, children should hear themselves described not as "Christian children" but as "children of Christian parents". This in itself would raise their consciousness, empower them to make up their own minds and choose which religion, if any, they favour, rather than just assume that religion means "same beliefs as parents". I could well imagine that this linguistically coded freedom to choose might lead children to choose no religion at all.

Please go out and work at raising people's consciousness over the words they use to describe children. At a dinner party, say, if ever you hear a person speak of a school for Islamic children, or Catholic children (you can read such phrases daily in newspapers), pounce: "How dare you? You would never speak of a Tory child or a New Labour child, so how could you describe a child as Catholic (Islamic, Protestant etc)?" With luck, everybody at the dinner party, next time they hear one of those offensive phrases, will flinch, or at least notice and the meme will spread.

A triumph of consciousness-raising has been the homosexual hijacking of the word "gay". I used to mourn the loss of gay in (what I still think of as) its true sense. But on the bright side (wait for it) gay has inspired a new imitator, which is the climax of this article. Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, faggot and pooftah are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us whose view of the universe is natural rather than supernatural; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like "gay". You can say "I am an atheist" but at best it sounds stuffy (like "I am a homosexual") and at worst it inflames prejudice (like "I am a homosexual").

Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, of Sacramento, California, have set out to coin a new word, a new "gay". Like gay, it should be a noun hijacked from an adjective, with its original meaning changed but not too much. Like gay, it should be catchy: a potentially prolific meme. Like gay, it should be positive, warm, cheerful, bright.

Bright? Yes, bright. Bright is the word, the new noun. I am a bright. You are a bright. She is a bright. We are the brights. Isn't it about time you came out as a bright? Is he a bright? I can't imagine falling for a woman who was not a bright. The website http://www.celeb-atheists.com/ suggests numerous intellectuals and other famous people are brights. Brights constitute 60% of American scientists, and a stunning 93% of those scientists good enough to be elected to the elite National Academy of Sciences (equivalent to Fellows of the Royal Society) are brights. Look on the bright side: though at present they can't admit it and get elected, the US Congress must be full of closet brights. As with gays, the more brights come out, the easier it will be for yet more brights to do so. People reluctant to use the word atheist might be happy to come out as a bright.

Geisert and Futrell are very insistent that their word is a noun and must not be an adjective. "I am bright" sounds arrogant. "I am a bright" sounds too unfamiliar to be arrogant: it is puzzling, enigmatic, tantalising. It invites the question, "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. The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic world view."
"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 free thinkers. But all brights have a world view that is free of supernaturalism and mysticism."
"Oh, I get it. It's a bit like 'gay'. So, what's the opposite of a bright? What would you call a religious person?"
"What would you suggest?"
Of course, even though we brights will scrupulously insist that our word is a noun, if it catches on it is likely to follow gay and eventually re-emerge as a new adjective. And when that happens, who knows, we may finally get a bright president.

The Brights website

The British Humanist Association and National Secular Society and The Brights are three societies promoting atheism in the UK. What are the differences?

The Brights

What is a bright?

  • 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

Reason and Purpose

Currently the naturalistic worldview is insufficiently expressed within most cultures, even politically/socially repressed. To be a Bright (someone who fits the definition and registers on this Web site) is to participate in a movement to address the situation.

There is a great diversity of persons who have a naturalistic worldview. Some are members of existing organizations that foster a supernatural-free perspective. Far more individuals are not associated with any formal group or label. Under the broad umbrella of the naturalistic worldview, the constituency of Brights can undertake social and civic actions designed to influence a society otherwise permeated with supernaturalism.

The movement's three major aims are:
  1. Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
  2. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
  3. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.

The Brights — An international Internet constituency of individuals

Are You a Bright?

Think about your own worldview to decide if it is indeed free of supernatural or mystical deities, forces, and entities. If you decide that you fit the definition, then you can simply say so and join with us in this extraordinary effort to change the thinking of society—the Brights Movement.

Can the Brights impact society's outlook regarding the naturalistic worldview and the people who hold it? That remains to be seen, but if you are intrigued by the possibilities, you are invited to explore this Web site, learn more about the Brights Movement, and register as a Bright.

The Vision

Persons who have a naturalistic worldview should not be culturally stifled or civically marginalized due to society’s extensive supernaturalism. Rather, they ought to be accepted as fellow citizens and full participants in the cultural and political landscape.

This egalitarian vision is not the reality today. Moving toward it requires that individuals who do hold a naturalistic worldview make manifest their existence within society. The idea of materializing as Brights at the Internet hub of The Brights’ Net is to acquire visibility, fortify one another in what is a worthwhile outlook on the world, and grow a constituency that can join forces broadly to work on broad aims of social and civic action. Those who register into this Internet constituency have worldviews free of the supernatural deities, forces, and entities in which so many others believe. They stand for “a level playing field” that provides the same foothold in society as citizens who believe in the supernatural. The time is here to garner visibility and work for full social acceptance and civic participation.

The Brights' Principles

The Brights’ Net has a set of guiding principles for association and action. While spreading the word about the constituency, the organization stands for these principles—as values, not dogma.

Word Talk

The generic noun form of bright is a tool to lay emphasis on the shared naturalistic worldview of a potentially large aggregate of persons. The term offers many individuals a means to step forward free of socially burdensome labels to speak more candidly and positively about their outlook.

Symbolism

Light!—clear and vivid! The imagery of brightness speaks to humanity’s impetus toward learning, audacity for open inquiry, and spirit of skepticism that once characterized an optimistic time on earth when science and reason seemed to offer the key to the future.

Essays on the Brights

The authors of these selections write as individuals and offer depictions of the Bright movement somewhat at variance. Nevertheless, the material offers useful background and exemplifies some of the controversy over the noun, bright.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

These concise questions and answers are a primer about the constituency of Brights, the Brights’ Network, and the overall Bright endeavor.

Backtalk!

The idea of the noun bright as an umbrella term covering individuals with a naturalistic worldview is controversial. Here are some comments from individuals, followed by a bit of counter-commentary on our part.

First Thoughts

My first thoughts about The Brights are that they are without much local presence in Dorset / UK. They have not narrowed their definition down to ethical principles. Largely Internet based they are without much local presence in Dorset / UK