Tracking the Bright Idea

Most of the action on my site is now in my blog. I invite you to visit!

Many of the links below will take you to blogs ("WebLogs") that contain not only the author's (often one-sided) opinion but also a lively (and usually two-sided) discussion by the readers of the blog. So the designation Supporter or Critic really only applies (loosely) to the author of the main article, and not necessarily to the consensus of the readers.

Here are targeted Google searches that find references to the Brights: [All] [Past 3 months]

The items section in this are in reverse chronological order by the date I post them. But the date associated with an item is the date it first appeared on the Internet (as near as I can determine.) After living here for awhile, items will move to the Archive section below, where they will be in reverse chronological order by their appearance date.

Some people (both religious and non-religious) have objected to the term because they read it as as implying that the non-religious are more intelligent ("brighter") than the religious. (In his Wired article, Dawkins states "Whether there is a statistical tendency for brights (noun) to be bright (adjective) is a matter for research.") There was a similar backlash early in the life of the word "gay": for example the satirical magazine Private Eye ran a cartoon strip called "The Sads" for many years.

I'm starting this blog, simply said, because I haven't found anything like it as a resource on the web yet. This is a place I want to encourage the discussion of how those who find themselves naturalists and willing participants in a religious (in my case Christian) tradition can navigate between dogma and devotion, amid tradition without relinquishing reason; how we can be both religious and naturalist at the same time--to guide our religiosity with the best knowledge and thinking that we can.

The term Bright was coined earlier this year by Paul Geisert and his wife Mynga Futrell, both freelance writers in Sacramento, California. Frustrated with the rather negative overtones often associated with words that describe people who donÕt subscribe to religious beliefs, Geisert and Futrell sought to introduce a new way of referring to individuals whose world view is entirely naturalistic. The new noun Bright is intended to be used as a generic reference to all such individuals, functioning as a so-called umbrella term for atheists, agnostics, naturalists and rationalists, among others. It is therefore possible to describe yourself as an atheist and also say that you are a Bright, meaning that you are part of the larger Brights movement.

[See also the many thoughtful responses] If Mr. Dennett and the rest of the so-called brights have produced refutations of Kant that have eluded the philosophical community, they should share them with the rest of us. But until then, they should refrain from the ignorant boast that atheism operates on a higher intellectual plane than theism. Rather, as Kant showed, reason must know its limits in order to be truly reasonable. The atheist foolishly presumes that reason is in principle capable of figuring out all that there is, while the theist at least knows that there is a reality greater than, and beyond, that which our senses and our minds can ever apprehend.

The brights have a point on the vocabulary issue. With the exception of freethinker and secular humanist, most of the words that connote the bright lifestyle have a reactive or pejorative cast to them. Think of skeptic, infidel, dissenter, pagan, doubter, heathen. I would point out for the record, though, that negative terminology aimed at religious people is more plentiful and more scornful: zealot, dogmatist, Bible banger, Holy Roller, Bible bigot, Jesus freak, Bible thumper, knee bender, Bible basher, glory roader, Bible pounder, devil dodger, Holy Joe.

Be that as it may, it will be instructive to see if bright catches on. It certainly addresses the negativity problem: as The Chronicle of Higher Education has noted, "not incidentally, the word makes [atheists] all seem exceptionally smart." Still, the annals of semantic substitution of this sort—in which a name change is proposed for an entire group of people, and everyone goes along—are not voluminous. During the past few decades we have seen gay largely replace homosexual, and Native American replace Indian. Underprivileged has supplanted poor people. We no longer have housewives—we have homemakers.

I had originally suggested to Paul and Mynga that we solicit feedback from various sources before settling on a new label, but they convinced me that sometimes social movements are best driven not by committee and excessive discussion (free thinkers, humanists, and skeptics have been talking about the labeling problem for decades) but by simply moving forward with the goal of making it happen by momentum, will, and force of personality. Since much of what I do gels with this philosophy, I was initially receptive.

But then the Associate Director of the Skeptics Society, Matt Cooper, pointed out (based on his experience as a marketing consultant and political activist) that it is not the philosophy of the movement under debate, but the brand name. This is a branding issue, not an ideology issue. And the scientific approach to branding is to conduct focus groups and market tests to see what works. Unfortunately, this was never done for the bright brand, and as a consequence we are now embroiled in a big bright brouhaha. Thus, Matt and I analyzed all of the e-mails we received in response to the second e-Skeptic that solicited feedback, and followed that up with a focus group study.

[Also includes an excellent testimonials section.] [From the IFAQ] As the coiners of bright were first to announce, nobody owns rights to the term and all are encouraged to promote the positive idea of brights. The AHA's mission is to promote Humanism, a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity. Since, by definition, Humanists are a type of bright, it follows that an initiative in support of the bright movement such as the BrightRights Project, will also support AHA's mission.

The gay meme improved the image and, I dare add, the happiness of a once unpopular minority. Similarly, 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. A Gallup poll in 1999 asked American voters the following question: "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be an X would you vote for that person?" X took on the following values: Catholic, Jew, Baptist, Mormon, black, homosexual, woman, atheist. Six out of the eight categories secured better than 90 percent approval. But only 59 percent would vote for a homosexual, and just 49 percent would vote for an atheist. Bear in mind that there are 29 million Americans who describe themselves as nonreligious, secular, atheist, or agnostic, outnumbering Jews tenfold and all other religions except Christianity by an even larger margin.

George Dvorsky offers an insightful critique of the "brights." I agree with much of what he says, particularly his concern that the movement may degenerate into an exercise in nasty, snobbish, quasi-religious tribalism. But Dvorsky's evangelical agnosticism gives the piece a somewhat schizophrenic quality.

One the one hand, he correctly chides Daniel Dennett for suggesting that what atheists "want most of all" is "to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less." I concur with Dvorsky that Dennett is being disingenuous; like me, I'm sure that Dennett believes atheists are entitled to much more respect than the cud-chewing sky-god baby-talkers...

The bright meme looks set to take off as intended, creating a more open and accepting atmosphere for atheists. But it's what the brights do with this newfound acceptance, rather than the marketing success itself, that will matter in the long run. Brights have to realize that if they're going to proselytize, a considerable responsibility goes along with this. Convincing people that supernatural phenomena don't exist is only part of the story, and just the first step.

The most absurd argument offered by Dennett is that brights "just want to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less." Those familiar with the work of Dennett and Dawkins will be waiting for the laughter after that claim. The same respect? These two militant secularists show no respect for religious belief.

Tracks citations of The Brights Network URL.

While the major news media are spending their time on Kobe and Arnold, it is our privilege to present two thoughtful pieces side-by-side. Last week, our regular guest author, Dr. Jack Good, sent an open letter to Dr. Daniel Dennett in response to the Tufts University philosopher's op-ed piece in The New York Times entitled "The Bright Stuff." Dr. Dennett has penned a rejoinder that we are very pleased to post here. For the ease of the reader, we are publishing these two contributions side-by-side.

...But then there's another possibility, which is that we naturalists shoot ourselves in our collective feet. Is it possible that there's a trace of power mongering when a scientists who studies nature promotes absolute naturalism? Do we deliberately annoy in order to get attention once in a while? (Oh come on Richard, you know you do!)

Isn't the cult of victimhood feeling sort of nineties yet? Naturalists made good victims back in Galileo's day, and he remains an enduring martyr figure in naturalist education for children, but today scientists and technologists are enormously rich, powerful, and influential. Non-technical people are in awe and terror of us.

If the Bright position is that the public must believe there is no life after death in order to enter into a pact of rationality (in which, say, desperately needed stem cell research can take place unmolested), you are setting yourselves up to be noble, beautiful losers, at least in the eyes of your sympathizers; Ralph Naders of science.

In spite of their intended connotation for the word "bright," it seems to me that it will inevitably be seen as a claim to intellectual superiority. Their Web site identification of themselves as the "voice of reason" is an example of this, I think. If atheism represents reason, then theism must represent unreason.

I first heard of the Bright movement a couple months ago when I attended the Atheist Alliance International annual convention. I was hesitant to adopt the term and have only recently done so. I was hesitant because (other than the silly sound of it) the movement did have political ambitions. Rob was right to point out the danger of this ambition in his article. A government controlled by atheists is still a government, an institution of violent coercion. However, I would urge caution in condemning the entire movement in one sweep.

I accepted the new label even though I disagree with the political rhetoric. Politics is only part of the movement. The main thrust of the movement is to freshen the philosophy of naturalism and to unify its diverse adherents. Many people have preconceived notions about atheists and agnostics. The very words often inspire fear and loathing. Many people have been taught that we (atheists) are inherently immoral people and that we should be kept clear of children, among other things. "Bright" is a new, positive-sounding word free of the centuries-old negative connotations of "atheist" and "agnostic."

Yes, I'm a materialist. I'm willing to be shown wrong, but that has not happened — yet. And I admit that the reason I'm unable to accept the claims of psychic, occult, and/or supernatural wonders is because I'm Iocked into a world-view that demands evidence rather than blind faith, a view that insists upon the replication of all experiments — particularly those that appear to show violations of a rational world — and a view which requires open examination of the methods used to carry out those experiments. The decision to be a materialist is my own, I made it after many years of consideration of what I observed, and after reading Bertrand Russell and others. Since it was not a mere reaction to incoming information, but the result of examining that information, I'm proud of my decision.

(Aside: I'm proud of being an American, a skeptic, and a bright. I only take pride in those things that I accomplished, not those that I was born with or was given. I chose to be an American, and I earned that distinction, I became and remain a skeptic though it was difficult and still gives me problems, and being a bright is flying in the face of those millions who label me inferior because I'm not superstitious like they are. I don't care; I know and accept the real world.)

[This is a shameless plug for my own writeup of "The Brights" in the amazing collaborative encylopedia known as "Everything." --Robert]

A member of "The Brights" is one who identifies themselves as "a Bright." "Bright" in this sense is a new noun: a label of self-identification coined in 2003 meaning, "a person whose worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements," and intended to encompass naturalists, atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, igtheists, and anyone else who can honestly affirm lack of belief in the supernatural. The purpose of the term is not to replace any existing philosophical terms or the existing senses of the adjective "bright," but to provide a positive "umbrella term" that diverse people who's main shared characteristic is lack of supernatural belief can rally to for the purposes of political visibility and unity.

Not just an atheist, an atheist is just somebody who doesn't believe in God, they could have lots of other different irrational supernatural beliefs. It goes beyond atheism and it is more positive and unambiguous than the term rationalism . It means what we want it to mean, it is our word, our word for us. Just like the word gay means what the gay people say it means, it is their label, it is what they chose to call themselves, they own the label and they can wear it with pride. We are not taking away the original meaning of the word, we are just using it in a different way.

If the world becomes known in its entirety, when the search for knowledge is complete, what would humanity be like? Would we all be Brights, then? Buddhas? Devoted members of the new Zion? Or would we, as I suspect, be virtually dead?

We may never reach the end of epistemology, and we do not need to in order to understand the importance of mysticism in the human species. Video games. Roleplay. Online journals. Stuffed Animals. Poetry. Drug highs. Orgasms. Nightmares. The quest for an experience beyond the “known” is utterly human. Radio Stations. News Channels. Reality shows. Broadway. MTV. Will science be able to tell me what it is like to be admired by fans the world over, or will I have to fabricate my own beliefs in order to feel what it is like? A fabrication that, frankly, results mostly from personal or shared experiences and ideas about the natural world.

Daniel Dennett's op-ed ("The Bright Stuff," 7/12/03) on being a Bright in the New York Times is not quite as clueless as Dawkins' piece . Dennett decries the prejudice against atheists and identifies himself as a persecuted "silent majority." He's right, in some ways. Although there are 27 million atheists in the United States, many in the highly productive science and technology fields, we are routinely derided by our Judeo-Christian leaders. No politician has yet dared to out him or herself as a nonbeliever. Public policy is often based on the idea that we have souls in need of saving.

But if we're going to stand up and fight for our right to be atheists, let's not try to jump-start some dumb little advertising campaign that makes us sound like cultists or kids who went to hippie day school. Let's start where it hurts, the way our brothers and sisters did: with words like godless, unholy, damned, infidel, unbeliever, sinner. I am a sinner and proud! Civil liberties for the infidel! We represent the godless future! Now get used to it.

I really think using "bright as a noun" to describe these people is a poor choice. It seems naive to suggest that it should not be taken as self-congratulatory. While I might try to convince people that "tall-and-good-looking" was the new term for short, geeky researchers in behavioral modeling -- I can't imagine anyone else buying into it.

Dawkins suggests there are precedents to the contrary.

Nonbelievers.

They hate that. They hate it when people describe them as "non" or "anti." Those labels put a negative spin on everything, they say, which is how this "brights" idea started in the first place.

Last November, Paul Geisert and his wife, Mynga Futrell, heard about atheists who were planning a march in Washington. Geisert and Futrell, freelance writers who live in Sacramento, liked the intent: to make the increasing number of people who don't subscribe to religious beliefs clear to the media and government. The number of people who do not identify with a religion has doubled since 1990, to 29.4-million, or 14 percent of the adult population, according to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey conducted by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.

In the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the nation's leaders sought to console Americans through religious vigils and Scripture-laden speeches. Talk of using government money for faith-based programs continued. Geisert and Futrell saw all this as overstepping the lines of church-state separation.

But the name that organizers gave the march made Geisert cringe: the Godless March on Washington.

"I went just about ballistic," he said. "I was just steaming under the idea of being called godless." He didn't want to be described as a negation of God, he said.

Are you a bright? Quite possibly, if you are a regular reader of Arts & Letters Daily. There are many like you. Stand up. Be counted.

So there's a worthwhile goal here, as far as I'm concerned. It would be a good thing not to feel bad about being agnostic. But it seems to me you're shooting yourself in the foot if you try to do this by pretending all of us who fall under this broad, ill-defined term share much of anything. The beliefs of an atheist are just about as alien to me as the beliefs of a godperson. My head just isn't built to be able to rule anything out. To me believing there isn't a god is like believing there's not a red square on the other side of the card I'm holding up. A naturalist, anyone who's using logic is going to say that there's no way to know WHAT isn't pictured on the other side of that card. The chances are pretty damned slim that it's a red square, but they aren't null.

Yesterday Daniel Dennett had an editorial in the nytimes entitled The Bright Stuff and Richard Dawkins has a similar piece for the Guardian The Future Looks Bright about the bright movement. Dennet defines brights:

[quote from Dennett article]

I am a bright...

Here's how and why Michael Rea should have won his exchange with Daniel Dennett (instead of committing the technical foul of quoting him somewhat out of context.)

The crux of the problem with Dennett's position , as Rea correctly notes, is that he comes out and demands "to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less." Yet Dennett himself is highly disrespectful of religion.

Indeed, the sole function of the term 'bright', so far as I can make out, is to encode disrespect for religion into the concept formerly known as atheism. (Otherwise, why not just call yourself an atheist ?) Consider the fact that, in the space of a paragraph, Dennett characterizes a 'bright' as "a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view" and as a person with "an inquisitive world view" . The term is obviously going to be unusably unstable and ambiguous if it turns out there are significant numbers of religious folk who are not dull and incurious; or if it turns out that there is a sizable population of intellectually complacent naturalists. Dennett obviously does not seriously countenance either possibility, which seems to me silly and blinkered. But Dennett is entitled to his opinion.

There's no denying that these folks are "bright" in the old sense of the word and fun to dialogue with. I'm sad to say that they make a much more positive contribution to the quality of public debate than some of my Christian brothers and sisters.

Finally, as I've mentioned to some Brights, I hope they don't think that they operate without a worldview composed of the same human "practical wisdom" or "common sense" that the rest of us have. While they can deny the supernatural, they can't deny the work of the cognitive scientists and developmental psychologists that demonstrate that none of us operate solely on the basis of fact and logic.

"Having a naturalistic worldview means that Brights are not themselves religious" says the website. Why? My impression from the website (as well as some of the names connected with this movement from Dawkins to Dennett) is that they are largely unfamiliar with a large body of religious thought in the 20th century which have had no problem combining religious faith and naturalism. Some of the schools of thought which come to mind include process philosophy, personalism, and empirical theology.

If they wanted to make a movement for atheists that is fine. But if one is going to make a movement centered around naturalism, then why exclude religious and theistic naturalists from the bunch? It's not just academic schools of thought which have successfully combined both things.

There have been religious movements who were born in this country which have worked with such a union. From Reconstruction and Humanistic Judaism to Ethical Culture to many Unitarians to many Quakers, the idea that the sacred is to be found in the natural world, in human relations, and in the possibilities of a better world versus some supernatural realm has made a definite contribution to the religious landscape.

Michael Rea, a philosopher at Notre Dame, has posted a reply to Daniel Dennett's 'brights' Op-Ed , complete with a reply from Dennett and a counter-reply from Rea.

Rea argues that Dennett shouldn't be demanding respect from theists when he shows so little respect towards them. (Rea also equates 'bright' with 'atheist', which I think is fair. I was writing a long post arguing that this was true, but it all ended up seeming redundant.) But I think Dennett gets the better of the exchange, as long as you're prepared to allow him a fairly fine distinction.

Dennett argues that he shouldn't have to respect all religions in order to demand respect for atheism - he doesn't have to respect religions that encourage mass murder, or genital mutilation, or (and this is the kicker) the teaching of blatant falsehoods. Rea interprets this as disrespect for all creationists. But creationists can fall on the acceptable side of Dennett's catalogue of religions, as long as they don't try and poison the minds of the kiddies. This might seem like a fairly arbitrary boundary to toleration, but I think it's the right one.

I am a 70-year-old bright. After all these years, I am delighted to have a fresh name that doesn't begin with the letter A. Atheist and agnostic are such negative labels.

I was raised in a God-infused and loving family. I have lived in God-infused neighborhoods all my life. Daily, I interact with sincere, respectful believers who God bless me and describe their latest personal contact with God in detail. How do I get by? I smile and listen carefully, but I know that they are merely telling me of their experience, not asking me for my comment or beliefs.

But I'll be happy to be a bright from now on.

In addition to "atheist," and "humanist," as of July 2003 I also identify myself as a Bright.

This is good stuff. Here is my official announcement, I am a bright.

All very interesting, but what they fail to note is that, while the majority of conservative Christians agree on the issues upon which they tend to weigh in - abortion, homosexual marriage, gun control - there is no overall stance on such issues that agnostics, rationalists, skeptics, atheists, objectivists, and igtheists can all agree upon. Some issues perhaps - the seperation of Church and State being one - but since The Brights have failed to provide a political viewpoint on most of the pressing issues in our world today, it appears as though they may be on the brink of wooing a bunch of people looking for a political rooftop to call their own without letting them know what foundation or framework is holding the roof above their heads. Not all atheists, for instance, find capital punishment abhorent, and not all agnostics are pro-choice when it comes to abortion.

But there's no keeping a stupid idea down in this confused age, and this morning, Whomp, there it was in the dreaded and dreadful New York Times. Yes, a full-on Times OP-ED blatheration entitled.... wait for it... "The Bright Stuff." (God, can we just please lose the punning headlines in the Times? Please?)

In this article by one Daniel C. Dennett ( Identified as "a professor of philosophy at Tufts University,"...and author of the wetly named, "Freedom Evolves.'') is a virtual fornication festival of the terminally unclued.

I notice that "clever" is one of the least common uses [of the word "bright".] So I have a question for the obviously very angry Pejman and for the incomparably wonderful Jane Galt or the quite thoughtful Steven: do they believe that, by calling myself a bright, I believe that religious people do not emit many photons, are not particularly saturated with color, are low-pitched, and tend to be inauspicious?

This all seems so awfully defensive to me. Especially over something that struck me from day one as whimsical and charming--and as probably describing me better than other labels ever have.

ave you heard about the self-named Bright movement ? Bottom line, it's the functional equivalent of an atheist/agnostic/humanist Red Hat Society . They're feeling ignored and uncared for, and now they want to start a Movement. cue Arlo Guthrie here

I am completely, utterly, and entirely ambivalent to the Brights debate. I applaud Dawkins for coming right out and announcing, "This is spin! Spin this is! Look at us! We are co-opting a phrase with connotations to smart and upbeat and using it to describe us so that people will accept us more! Watch us go!"

Help yourself, but please no direct links. If you'd like icons in a different color, or a larger size, just drop me a note. Icon destination links are completely up to you.

See also the CafePress store, Bright Stuff, for body brands. Note: this is a not-for-profit store.

The fact is that liberalism relies as much on non-rational, even "mystical" ideas just as much as does traditional conservatism. The only folks who can dispense with them, and do, are the Objectivists and similar radical libertarians. Homeless folks starving in the street? What me worry?! For some time now, I've been contending that the "irreligious right" is in many ways scarier than the religious variety, and any successful Brights movement will definitely shift power from one to the other. (At least a greedy televangelist can be accused of hypocrisy; try accusing a Randian of being greedy and he'll thank you for the kind words.) Dennett and his nice liberal friends might want to reflect on what happens when you lie down with dogs.

...And it is these small wrongs in the shadow of the larger good of protecting the country that have begun to generate energy among dissenters again. Slowly anger seems to be rising over the economy, recent misleading comments, and over the aforementioned trampled bill of rights. It's hard to say what will be the biggest result - maybe a new president. It happened once before in 1992. But one of the things that has resulted is what I was discussing before someone absconded with the point: entangling Patriotism (always uppercase you know) with religion has forced lines to be drawn, and one of the groups that has emerged are the Brights. Intelligent people who are patriots but not religious per se were finding it impossible to comfortably speak out. Hopefully redefining the terms will help. Having a new label won't make political hay, but it might help the people who are unsure of the confrontation find their courage.

It will be interesting to see where it goes, if the label remains, but at the very least it's a little progress.

It's striking how the idea seems to be going over like a ton of bricks even among people who themselves would fit Dennett's definition. I agree with their complaints about the word: it's self-congratulatory, cutesy and ungrammatical. Also a few commenters have asked, "What's wrong with good old 'atheist'?"

I don't know for sure, but I suspect there are a few different reasons Dennett (and his friend Richard Dawkins) are promoting 'bright' in its place. For one thing, 'atheist' has a negative connotation and an entirely negative meaning -- it defines you by what you don't believe rather than what you do.

Secondly, Dennett seems to be using the word to encompass several different groups that don't really belong together. At one point he says there are 27 million atheists or agnostics in America -- all of which he calls brights. In reality, though, I think that includes people who not only affirm positively that there is no God, but people who don't know (like me), people who affirm positively that you can't know (like Joel) and people who just don't care. It's pretty clear from the attitude that Dennett shows toward religion that what he's really talking about are affirmative atheists, but the 'bright' label lets him create the illusion of a bigger tent.

A third possibility is that the word atheist technically means someone who doesn't believe in God, while what Dennett speaks of is a rejectiion of all things supernatural. Taoism, for instance, is a belief system that's supernatural but not theist, as is Buddhism, kinda, so the term would include people who don't follow those. That may be giving Dennett too much credit though, because like a lot of Western atheists he doesn't seem to realize that most other religions aren't like Christianity. For instance, he says: "We are, in fact, the moral backbone of the nation: brights take their civic duties seriously precisely because they don't trust God to save humanity from its follies."

Actually, Christianity is the only major religion that believes that God will save us from ourselves (or, to put it more nicely, gives us grace). I do not know of another one that does.

So, what would be a good name for Dennett and his compadres? Since Dawkins is a zoologist I'm sure he'd appreciate my using the principle that the first name to be coined should take precedence. And, in fact, the first name that I know of goes back a whopping 2800 years to ancient India. The word is lokayata...

when i first blogged about the B word i thought it was a nice idea, if a little silly. but, you know, i think there is something important about consciousness-raising. i just hope there are some cool bright t-shirts soon.

in the comments a couple of days ago someone referenced this NYT op-ed by daniel dennett, titled " the bright stuff ." (strangecurrency/strange to read if you aren't registered). the article was interesting not only because it was filed from blue hill, maine - although that kicks ass! - but also because it makes a strong point for coming out as a bright. dennett describes a conference where he spoke to a group of young people and tried revealing his status at the end of his allotted time. this is what happened...

See, we don't need to take a perfectly good word -- "bright" -- which already has several different meanings attached to it, and give it yet another meaning. Especially when we already have plenty of perfectly useful words for the thing the "bright" advocates want to describe -- atheist, agnostic, naturalist, secular humanist, humanist, and so on. New terminology won't change the fact that some people are unfavorably disposed towards these words, because it is the ideas behind those words that they object to, not the words themselves. No fulminating Bible-thumper is going to change his mind about atheists being Godless sinners if atheists start calling themselves something else. No fanatical Muslim is going to sing songs of praise for secular humanists if they start calling themselves "cigars" or "Molly" instead. The Brighters are going to be sneered at by a certain segment of the population no matter what they do, and the cutesy smugness of their stance certainly is adding people to that number.

A lot of the outrage is aimed at the supposed arrogance and condescension in adopting the term "bright," for, as the argument goes, doesn't that mean that the non-bright are somehow dim or not as clever as the bright? It is the sort of offense that can only be taken by those who have never had the mainstream premises challenged. After all (as John Constantine similarly points out in the comments to this post critical of "bright"), one who says "I am a Christian" is implicitly saying "I believe in a particular version of a deity, and part of that belief is that those who believe like me will be rewarded with eternal life, and those who don't will be punished with hellfire." "Bright" is no more offensive or arrogant than the uncontroversial "saved" or "blessed" (or "clear" or "chosen"); if anything, it's considerably less offensive, as any arrogance implied by "bright" is limited to the earthly life as opposed to consequences in the hereafter. (As Christopher Hitchens once said , Christianity seems to be a wish to live in a "celestial North Korea" with "cradle-to-grave divine supervision"--but worse, since even Kim Jong Il will leave you alone after you die.) That the very assertion by a Dennett of "My non-belief in God is a consequence of my use of reason" is seen as offensive seems to me to demonstrate Dennett's point that a bright world-view is politically incorrect in a way that other religious viewpoints aren't.

"What happens to us when we die?" I have no frickin' idea. And though I'm reasonably certain that we don't line up for an appointment with a long-dead dude named Pete to get checked in to Hebbin, I can't prove, definitively , that this is not the case, or that it at least is not an acceptable fable version of the actual phenomenon. Yet, if someone else chooses to sign up for the theistic view, I have no problem with it, assuming, of course, that I am equally free to hold my atheistic view.

So now come "The Brights". You can follow the link to get the full take, but it really comes down to this, if I may sum it up: "We atheists are smarter people -- thus "Brights" -- than you unfortunate and oppressive masses of ignorant believers. We hereby declare ourselves as such, and encourage all who are "Bright" to go forth and spread the word"

Oh yeah, that'll work.

Look, I'm all for promoting a worldview that doesn't include supernatural dogma, but one thing I have never felt was a useful tactic in debate was to begin by proclaiming my opponent an idiot. More importantly, in this case, it simply isn't true.

I have only one little thing to add to the avalanche of criticisms at [Asymmetrical Information] (many from the brights' own would-be constituencies): This is nothing new. Centuries ago the champions of post-Christian epistemological departure from tradition decided to borrow a little Greek and Christian imagery and name their movement "the Enlightenment" and the past out of which they grew "the Dark Ages." They got away with it then. This time they won't, not least because they are cheapening what was once a proud intellectual movement into defensive identity/victim politics. The first modernists were brilliant and confident; these folks sound arrogant and desperate.

On July 12, 2003 , Daniel Dennett published an op-ed piece in the New York Times called The Bright Stuff. Two days later, I posted a reply--"Dennett's Bright Idea"--on this website. The reply was forwarded to Dennett, resulting in two further essays--"Shame on Rea", by Dennett, and my reply, "Self Defense". All of these essays (except for Dennett's original New York Times article) are posted below.

This exchange has attracted a lot more attention than I expected to; and one result has been that various emails have been sent to me, some defending Dennett, others expressing agreement with me. As one might expect, thinking through the exchange in light of these messages has helped bring me to a better understanding of Dennett's views, as well as to a better understanding of my own. There is much more that could be said on both sides of this debate. What I take to be the main points of my two essays below I still stand by; but some of what I say (especially in the domain of Dennett exegesis) deserves qualification or further support. For this, see the "Addenda" below.

It's almost as bad as the dreaded Mensa, the organization for highly intelligent people who are nevertheless not quite intelligent enough not to belong to it. I imagine the next Mensa convention will be filled with people itching to say "I'm a Bright!" over a game of three-dimensional scrabble and a cup of Ovaltine.

The blogosphere often claims for itself a moral superiority in its trenchant and thoughtful analysis of the world, but the largely O'Reilly- and Coulter-esque reaction to Dennett's "The Bright Stuff" ... puts the lie to it. Nearly all the responses sadly miss the tongue-in-cheek nature of Dennett's essay.

I think the term is arrogant.

I offer the Webster's-approved appellation "secularist" as an inclusive and inoffensive name for non-believers.

It seems they would like something shorter and catchier. I can't see why. Episcopalians and Presbyterians seem to do just fine.

On the other hand, having someone call himself a "bright" would send you that perfect signal to say "hey" to Betsy across the room...

One of the things about this meme that people like Dennett may not realize is that it's likely to prompt a dialog that I've been frustratedly hoping to see for a long time: the anti-religious paranoia that brights like Richard Dawkins appear to have, but which many of us do not share at all.

For example, while Dennett accuses politicians like President Bush of "bright bashing," I can't think of a single example of this occurring. I'd like to challenge Dennett to give us some examples of the Bush White House, or the Clinton White House for that matter, doing any such thing. While I'm sure one could find someone somewhere in Congress (there are 535 of them serving at any given time, for goodness sakes) who may have done something like that, overall this quite frankly strikes me as paranoia. I watch politics the way most men watch sports, and I see remarkably little bashing of the nonreligious.

Furthermore, while I am a bright, I consider many religious believers to be incredibly intelligent and interesting people. I have little but respect for the likes of C.S. Lewis and St. Augustine and Khalil Gibran. On the other hand, I find atheist philosophers like Nietzche and Rousseau vulgar and repulsive, and think of Ayn Rand and Karl Marx as two sides of the same fanatacist coin. On the gripping hand, brights like Richard Feynman, James Randi, and Penn & Teller are among my personal heroes.

Now, I say Dr Dennett's article is astonishing not because I approve of it. I find it astonishing because of its insufferable arrogance, its smarmy self-righteousness, and its breathtaking hostility to religious views. I find it astonishing because of its flawed reasoning, its sneering self-conceit, and its insulting moral relativism. Finally, I find it astonishing because it sums up so very well the complete and utter hubris of what Dr Dennett might call the "aggressive atheistic" mindset.

...Ultimately it is about mutual respect.

And let's face facts, saying "I am a bright" does connote the idea of being smart. If Christians went around referring to themselves in normal conservation as "Blesseds" or if your Jewish professor or columnist constantly pointed out that "I am a Chosen"--it would be rather off-putting to the secularist in the crowd, to say the least. The bottom line is that bright means smart in common parlance, and to pretend like that really doesn't matter is to be a bit self-deluding.

I am a Bright: a person who has a naturalistic worldview.

Like Dean, I at least loosely fit the description. Like Steven, I think this is just a new (and I add, dumb) word for "secular humanist." Like Kieran, I think Brights should keep quiet about all this when talking to other people.

I'm appalled, however, at this idea that we must recognize "brights" as some bitterly oppressed minority ready to form a group identity with a "swelling chorus" of righteously victimized voices clamoring for their group "rights"...

The reason I state that this is arrogant, is because the main inference being made here is that to be inquisitive, indeed to be intelligent and thinking, one cannot possibly believe in God, or hold to any religious view whatsoever. I find this to be a preposterous position, and one which flies in the face of the empirical evidence of many incredibly intelligence and curious individuals who have made profound intellectual contributions to mankind.

And if one is so enlightened, it one should clearly know that lumping a religious world-view in with believing in the Easter Bunny is intentionally provocative and, further, an intellectually dishonest mixing of categories.

The point is that the debate over religion is one that is very complex, very involved, and ultimately must be centered on respect for the views of non-believers and believers alike. It does not do to have one group pretentiously and arrogantly label themselves as somehow being "enlightened" due to their atheism/agnosticism, while at the same petulantly complaining about the perceived tendency of the other side to claim "enlightenment" for itself. Whether one believes or does not believe in God, the Golden Rule can and should be followed in this debate. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In the context of this debate, that would entail treating the other side with the respect that you would like to have afforded to your side--something that Daniel Dennett and the "brights" are manifestly failing to do thus far.

Why does 'bright' get to me in a way that 'gay' doesn't? Maybe because I value intelligence (a relatively stable quality which not everyone has) over happiness (an unstable quality which anyone can have). Saying that an atheist is 'bright' implies they are smart. And many atheists are smart, but many are also dumb. OTOH, we're all gay at one time or another, and I don't necessarily mean that we all have our homoerotic moments!

You may well be a bright. If not, you certainly deal with brights daily. That's because we are all around you: we're doctors, nurses, police officers, schoolteachers, crossing guards and men and women serving in the military. We are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters. Our colleges and universities teem with brights. Among scientists, we are a commanding majority. Wanting to preserve and transmit a great culture, we even teach Sunday school and Hebrew classes. Many of the nation's clergy members are closet brights, I suspect. We are, in fact, the moral backbone of the nation: brights take their civic duties seriously precisely because they don't trust God to save humanity from its follies.

A Bright is a person whose worldview is naturalistic, that is, free of supernatural or mystical elements. The term was coined by Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert, a pair of Brights from Sacramento, California, who thought it would be sensible to adopt a common name for atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, materialists, naturalists, rationalists, secularist humanists, and skeptics.

Anyway, I'm ready to sign up, but if "bright" goes the way of "gay" and "queer," we'd better think up some other word for "lots of light" since this one will shortly become useless in its traditional meaning. But I guess that's the least of our problems, no?

I didn't mean to imply last week that the term "bright" was originated by Richard Dawkins. He embraced it, as I do, but it was suggested by Paul Geisert, and he and Mynga Futrell, both of Sacramento, California, worked on the definition. Sorry for the misunderstanding...

From Blind Höna: It seems that I'm a bright.

[This site is authored by Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert --Robert]

A contemporary constituency of Brights is materializing in the United States and other nations as persons find the identify (as a Bright) useful to them as individuals.

Activists within the Brights seek greater societal acceptance for freethinking citizens, along with an increase in civic participation by those persons who are reluctant to let their nonreligious worldview be known (due to the forceful cultural authority of religion within their society). The concept of the Brights' movement is to grow influence (by increasing the number of freethinking people who make us of the generic umbrella term) and advance the use of reason (above faith and superstition) within their society and politics.

A nation that accords to religion a high degree of cultural authority will tend to offer to those who "have a faith" more acceptance and approval and to withhold same from those who don't. A "cultural blessing" for those who are religious puts the freethinker at considerable societal disadvantage. We may look to the identity labels the society uses for the nonconformists to religion and see how this disadvantage is expressed through language.

In the U.S., faith and belief have positive cultural connotation, whereas the freethinkers have become known by comparison. They are the faithless, unbelievers, godless, and other terms that label them by use of established terminology (faith, believer, god).

Preferring a positive descriptor to call their own, many freethinking persons are choosing to self-identify by a noun "umbrella" label, one that is useful and one they envision can place them all in a (more satisfactory) nutshell together...

We will not cease being atheists, agnostics, humanists or whatever... We will merely take on one more label, a more inclusive label, a positive label. Our hope is that society at large will come to know us more readily, come to understand us more openly, because they are not so put off by what they view as negative names.

Now personally I think this is a stupid idea. The term sucks and it sounds quite pretentions. However, am I unintentionally spurring transmission. I am a Christian. Though the audience that reads this journal is most likely miniscule by casting a negative light on this and having the background as a Christian am I galvanizing pretentious people that want to get a rise out of the religious? So in order to kill the meme theoretically I would support to an extreme degree. Shoving it down the throats of everyone I can? I really don't care enough to do either. But I will do something.

I'll create a new group with a cheerful name as well. It will be a clandestine operation (That i'm posting on the internet for the world to read) and the point is to actually encourage the "bright" meme but be silent about the group itself. The group will center around a philosopy of Schadenfreude. The main goal will be to when told that John Johansen is "a bright" we will not care. John will ask "Aren't you curious?" and we'll respond that "No it doesn't matter thats probably just synergy run rampant." John will not be able to impart his pretentions and be hurt. Then our secret group will announce our group's name and secret by retorting that "But what do I know I'm a spicy meatball."

I don't know whether [Dawkins] was off his rocker when he wrote this. I mean, I'm pretty smug about my scientific materialism too, but this sort of campaign makes us non-theists look like dweebs, really. But if you're interested, here is the website. I wouldn't mind getting into this for networking purposes and I don't even disagree with the outreach objectives, but why such a smug name? It makes us look like ... Christian evangelists.

What is behind all of this outrage at Richard Dawkins' "Brights" article ? I mean, I can see someone finding the whole idea a bit silly, and perhaps the implied antonyms make it a bit ill-mannered, but those evaluations would hardly warrant the scorn-fest we're seeing.

I've not been fully on the net lately so I'm catching this "Bright" thing late. The basic concept is that the anti-religious would be grouped under a new name, "Bright". The con is that this is labeled a "new" word because it's used as a noun instead of an adjective. It is, in fact, what Ayn Rand would call a "package deal" where a reasonable concept (labeling the anti-religous as a group) is packaged with undesirable and generally false ones (that, by connotation, the anti-religious are smarter and/or happier than everyone else). It reeks of the entire political correctness movement where things were relabeled for political purposes.

Progressives' vision of America shares the founders' hope that this nation would be a place where Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists and even Brights not only live together in peace but also participate as respected contributors to the building of this country.

[Does the use of the word "gay" mean that heterosexuals are "gloomies? I think not.] I think the answer to that one is that nobody else thinks so either. Perhaps because 'gay' was once a code for an unpopular and at that time illegal minority the question of what was its opposite did not come to the forefront for a long time. They were just "everybody else" or "normal people." The origin of the term we now use as the opposite of 'gay', namely 'straight', reflects this. I assume it had its origin in a denunciation of homosexuality. Both terms are now overlain with multiple layers of irony, not to mention history, and are no longer fighting words. But imagine if 'straight' were to be coined new today, as a non-ironic term for heterosexuals to describe themselves. Then it would be quite close in intention to 'bright.'

I want to begin this week's page with an important announcement that belongs up front here, not tagged onto the tail end of the update. It involves the advent of a new noun, "bright."

Most offensively, it is a transparent attempt to win an argument by changing the terminology, which is as unscientific a procedure as can be imagined. You may as well adopt the word "right" to describe your worldview. What does that make your opponents? Wrong, of course!

Why do I hate this "new" usage of the term "bright"? It has nothing to do with the latest agenda of people like Dawkins to stick it to the Xtians, or whatever his damage is this month. It has nothing to do with anyone's views on reality, mine included. (My theory is we are all really dead and this is the afterlife. We are all doomed to this hell of mediocrity for all eternity! This really is as good as it gets, baby! Bwahahaaha!)

Ahem. Anyway, I hate it because all my life "bright" has been used to describe a child that was really average-to-mediocre in everything he or she did, but was a simpering little suck-up -- I mean, was clean, neat, had good social skills, and always turned their homework assignments in on time. And then there is the sound of the word, which I loathe when it is used to describe people thusly. I just envisage all these people saying to each other "I'm a Bright!" "My daughter is a Bright child!" with the big jaw-stretching grimace-y smile that this word makes the lips and teeth do, and I just want to do violence to someone.

While I consider myself "bright," open minded, and the like, their self-definition seems to exclude my own beliefs in what they label the "supernatural" (a label I reject). As a panentheist, I believe there probably is no line between natural and supernatural, or if there is one, that it's porous and moves around a lot.

But I am not a New Ager. I don't believe in crystals. I don't get my aura read. I don't believe in Rod Brezny's astrology even if I enjoy reading it in the local alternative weekly. (It's quite good.)

So we need a term for those of in between the New Agers and the brights. I propose the "integrals."

Walter Wink in his book The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium describes the integral worldview:

In this worldview, soul permeates the universe. God is not just within me, but within everything. The universe is diffused with the divine. This is not pantheism, where everything is divine, but panentheism (pan, everything; en, in; theos, God), where everything is in God [sic] and God [sic] is in everything. Spirit is at the heart of everything, and all creatures are potentially revealers of God [sic].

Included among the integrals are my fellow panentheists, but also pagans, Matthew Fox's creation spirituality, Celtic Christians, Meister Eckhart and the Rhineland mystics, philosphical Taoists, some neurotheologians, and some pantheists. (And perhaps others.)

In this case, the marginalized and oppressed are atheists, and Richard Dawkins is swaggering to their aid.

This article reeks of smug. Great waves of smug roll from it and envelope my keyboard. It falls to the floor and wafts over the carpet. Anybody know where I can buy some smug remover? I'm fresh out.

i really have to admit that this made me laugh at first. because i felt kind of silly saying it. but i'm coming out as a bright. craig ceely at the anger of compassion posted eloquently on the topic.

It's just a pity that Dawkins wasn't prepared to "exercise prudence":

"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?"

Snarky humour at its worst, letting the reader's natural reaction say what you're not prepared to.

I have, as I said, no problem with the idea of a word to describe people with a non-spiritual viewpoint. I remain deeply unconvinced by this implicitly insulting choice.

I guess I would qualify as a "Bright," but I find the term egregiously arrogant and contrived. Also: What would be the opposite of a Bright? A Dark? Yeah, that'll go over well.

Language can help to shape the way we think about the world. (Indeed, Mr. Richard Dawkins!)

Looking for a way to leverage some nebulous "internet constituency" to provide you with a sense of identity (instead of, say, your nationality, race, religion, sex, sexual preference, operating system, sport team, disease, content-management tool, school, employer, taste in music, underdog political candidate, clique, model of automobile/gun, or preferred text editor)?

Maybe you're a Bright.

Rational Thought Needs A Better Marketing Campaign. So says Richard Dawkins, daddy of the meme, [not actually, see elsewhere on this page-- Robert] in this article in the London Guardian. I'm with him. Here we are in the 21st century, and nutcakes are still blowing themselves and us up in the name of "my god's better than your god, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah!"

That's why, although I tend to avoid joining anything beyond the condiments on my hamburger, I've signed up to be counted as a Bright: somebody whose worldview is "naturalistic" -- "free of supernatural and mystical elements." In other words, I do not believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, nor do I believe "on faith" that there's some big guy in the sky who's about to squash me under his big thumb for crossing against the light.

Isn't anyone happy just being an "atheist" or "agnostic" or "that wierd feller what don't do his churchin'" anymore? Well, I am. But it seems that we need a word all of a sudden. A seperate term of our own to unify all of these disparate voices into one grand, united coalition! And hey, maybe we can alienate ourselves from the public at large and ruin a perfectly good word for everyone else while we're at it. But I digress.

Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell are co-directors of The Brights' Movement , whose "long-term goal is to change the vocabulary of mainstream society such that 'bright' is used in a new way." It seems that the grand purpose of slipping this new definition into people's vocabulary is to give the irreligious a church, or at least some kind of blasphemy pride parade. Does being secular have the same social stigma as being gay? Is it really any easier for homosexuals to come out because they have a different word to describe themselves? How many more puns am I going to see involving the words Hulk, green, and box-office?

The Brights answer to some criticism: Euphemism? No, Umbrella. Arrogant? No, different! "If successful, these early efforts of ours could have a far-reaching effect somewhat akin to the eventual impact of McDonalds having cooked its first hamburger." If this new definition does catch on, hopefully it won't lead to global homogenization, marketing to toddlers, and union-busting.

By the end of his column, Dawkins has sidled over to a position where he can write this:

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 context makes clear that in this feeble joke he means 'president of the United States', and this is a hobby-horse that he's ridden before - his belief that George W Bush is unintelligent. Which shows that Guardian -style left-wingers - even when they're able thinkers who pride themselves on their respect for reason and evidence - can have their consciousness lowered to the point where they swallow any ludicrous myths if they're recited often enough by American left-wing comics and critics.

I've sat thinking about this article for a long time. I was even afraid to post it at first. Some people I love may not like it. Even my wife may not like it. It flies in the face of things I've said in the past about these sorts of things. Yet, a part of me is singing inside and thinking, "Yes. Yes yes yes. This is me. This is me!"

Yes. I can't even believe it. I may often disagree with Dawkins, but he's right on this one.

Richard Dawkins has some meandering thoughts on religion, which strike me as equal parts insightful (the gross distortion involved in referring to a "Catholic child" or a "Muslim child") and silly (redubbing atheists "brights," mimicing the homosexual appropriation of "gay").

The first person to call me "bright" will receive, free of charge, one punch on the nose. In fact, I am considering extending this offer to anyone whom I overhear using the word in that context. Since this behaviour is likely to get me locked up however, I am prepared to admit that I may just respond with "No, I'm gravy", instead. I'm actually agnostic apatheist, but I demand a completely disconnected descriptive word for my spirituality too.

I don't know whether I am a Bright or not [Note mouse-over text.]

...Which is an appealing suggestion, but the choice of word does seem unhelpfully arrogant; the Brights web page has to stress at embarrassing lengths that the word should never be used as a boastful adjective, and Dawkins himself is unable to resist shooting himself in the foot by implying that religious people should perhaps, ho ho, be considered "Dulls" or "Dims". I really like the idea of a friendly catch-all word for people who reject the supernatural, but the word "Bright" just feels wrong; it's too self-conscious of its own direction, too antagonistic, and too offensive to non-carriers ("I'm not a bright, but some of my best friends are").

Bad meme. But it'd be good to be proven wrong, in a years' time.

Dawkins is proposing to make atheism more palatable to the general population, and remove the stigma they must evidently be under for being atheists, by hijacking the word bright. So, instead of having to call yourself an atheist you can say you are a bright instead. Isn't that much nicer?

I say who cares. It matters not one iota to me whether you're homosexual, atheist, druid, black, white, red, a believer in God or what not. If you are dealing with me in an honest manner, respecting my property and my life, it matters not.

Dawkins suggestion is mere folly.

Richard Dawkins (a man just as intolerant as those he attacks) writes about raising consciousness about atheism by co-opting a word with cheerful associations. You would think that someone like Dawkins would realise that this is not how language works! Anyway you can sign up as a bright here should you so wish - if it wasn't such a stupid idea I might even consider doing it.

Dawkins is dead right here. I, too, regret that "gay" has been hijacked--Dawkins's word, remember, not mine--as it has. Further, I shall never, ever forgive Democratic/Leftist activists in this country for the way they have corrupted the word "choice." But--and here is an important difference--I do not resent that "hijacking" of "gay," nor do I know anyone who does. The word "gay" as it is used today serves an important purpose, exactly the purpose Dawkins explains above; it is accepted usage now, and in terms of public relations the purpose it serves is crucial. And, Dawkins goes on to say, the same coup can be accomplished again:

[quote from Dawkins article]

I like it.

I am a bright.

I suppose it all depends where you stand if you're an atheist. We're not descriminated against in the way black and gay people are. Not believing in a deity hasn't prevented me from working, renting a flat or walking the streets. It's a little different in America (George Bush Snr once said "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.") but they're not exactly rounding atheists up and putting them in camps just yet.

I'm happy, not exactly proud, to be an atheist and I don't feel the need to campaign for atheists' rights in the way Dawkins likes to from time to time. It can be the opposite of the Jehovah's Witness knocking on the door - pushing your eschewing of spiritual beliefs down people's throats.

Dawkins is right in one respect - describing oneself as an atheist in conversation can occasionally be a show-stopper. However, I know Dawkins means well but I'm blowed if I'm about to start referring to myself as a "bright". I'm a bright. It makes me sound like the member of a cult. I'm still deprogramming myself sixteen years after escaping the cult of Catholicism without the hassle of joining another.

Can a "Will and Grace" style sitcom be far behind? I'm on board.

I used to deplore what I regarded as the tokenism of my American atheist friends. They were obsessed with removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance (it was inserted as late as 1954), whereas I cared more about the chauvinistic nastiness of pledging allegiance to a flag in the first place. They would cross out "In God we Trust" on every dollar bill that passed through their hands (again, it was inserted only in 1956), whereas I worried more about the tax-free dollars amassed by bouffant-haired televangelists, fleecing gullible old ladies of their life savings. My friends would risk neighbourhood ostracism to protest at the unconstitutionality of Ten Commandments posters on classroom walls. "But it's only words," I would expostulate. "Why get so worked up about mere words, when there's so much else to object to?" Now I'm having second thoughts. Words are not trivial. They matter because they raise consciousness.

Currently the naturalistic worldview is insufficiently expressed within most cultures. The purpose of this movement is to form an umbrella Internet constituency of Brights having social and political recognition and power. The simple noun Bright gathers under the same umbrella a great diversity of persons who have a naturalistic worldview. Under this broad umbrella these people, as Brights, can gain social and political power in a society infused with supernaturalism.

While we in the "community of reason" think of ourselves by our plethora of terms, society-at-large thinks of us generally as atheists or secular humanists and describes us altogether as a negative, using terms like nonreligious, nonbeliever, godless, or faithless. We are judged as the opposite of values widely seen in a positive light. We have to change that manner of thinking.

We, the "community of reason," need a name that includes anyone who wants to accept it; has good connotations; has no bad connotations; is simple (effortlessly pronounced); is easily understood; is something to be proud of; is easily explained to others; and is well-suited to use in mottoes and slogans. We should have an "umbrella" term that is as warm and fuzzy as what the gays of today have going for them.

That name is: BRIGHT! That's right. We can be "the Brights"! A constituency of Brights includes anyone who says, "I am a Bright." Imagine how much better it would have sounded if "The Godless March on Washington" had been "The Brights' March on Washington."

As in the field of abortion, many homosexual terms are defined by people in different ways. Meanings of words are often chosen to promote specific belief system. [sic]

[ReligiousTolerance.org is a comprehensive site worth bookmarking. Although this page does not address the Brights, I've posted this link to provide some clarity in the debate over changing the language. -- Robert]

Most of the action on my site is now in my blog. I invite you to visit!