To Bright, Or Not Too Bright?

[viscousmemories]

As most of you have probably heard by now, there is a movement afoot to promote the term “Bright” to identify people with “a naturalistic worldview” (naturalists, from here on). The originators of the idea explain thusly:

Excerpted from the Brights Website (http://www.the-brights.net/):

The Reason

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.
This movement has gained some momentum in the community of naturalists, and will likely continue to do so as long as naturalists persist in adopting the “Bright” label. This introduces the question: “Should naturalists endorse this new term?”

In my opinion, the answer is “No”, and I have argued that position in numerous threads here and at two other forums in the last month. In this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55722&perpage=25&pagenumber=1), LadyShea suggested that this issue be taken to a formal debate between me and Clark, but Clark was unable to commit the time to it. So, after a lengthy exchange between Copernicus and myself in that same thread, I suggested that we have a formal debate. Copernicus said that he will take the pro stance, but somewhat grudgingly as he is not completely devoted to the idea.

So, the purpose of this post is two-fold. One, I ask if there’s anyone out there who would prefer to champion the Brights idea in place of Copernicus, and two, as I am not terribly familiar with the formal debating procedure, I ask for assistance from the moderators in drafting the proposition.

Thank you,

vm

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
and two, as I am not terribly familiar with the formal debating procedure, I ask for assistance from the moderators in drafting the proposition.


FD(CS) Rules and Procedures (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56978)

Jason

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Nightshade
FD(CS) Rules and Procedures (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56978)

Jason
Thanks Jason, but of course I read all the available information before posting my question. I should have clarified that I was more asking for some issue-specific suggestions for the topic and the scope of the debate, preferably from someone with formal debating experience who has been paying attention to this particular issue.

vm

[copernicus]

I would also like to endorse ViscousMemories' call for a debate on this issue. The "Bright" movement has generated two controversies: a public controversy and a controversy within the community of religious skepticism. I will step forward to take the "pro" side, if no one else does, but I come to the debate with mixed feelings. While I personally endorse the movement, I also agree with many of the reservations that people have expressed over the term "Bright". As a linguist, I prefer to stay in the role of observer rather than participant in linguistic controversies, but I will not shy away from the political issue.

What really interests me is whether or not this should be an internal community debate or a more formal debate between people of greater reputation and prominence. After all, Internet Infidels is the largest community of religious skeptics on the Internet, and the Bright movement is ostensibly an Internet-driven movement. So, ought we not to extend an invitation to more prominent persons to present the pro and con cases? Several II contributors have expressed resentment or disappointment that the Brights had not aired the issue here before going to the public at large. Do we not have some claim on their attention? I would be happy to defend the cause, which is still somewhat new to me. However, I ask whether we ought not to ask for some more substantive contribution from those who have proposed the idea to the Internet community at large.

Thoughts, anyone?

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by copernicus
What really interests me is whether or not this should be an internal community debate or a more formal debate between people of greater reputation and prominence. I think that would be cool too, but I don't know who we'd find to argue the con position. So far every prominent naturalist whose opinion I've heard is on the pro side, and I doubt any of them wants to challenge an issue they've already publicly endorsed.
After all, Internet Infidels is the largest community of religious skeptics on the Internet, and the Bright movement is ostensibly an Internet-driven movement. So, ought we not to extend an invitation to more prominent persons to present the pro and con cases? Who exactly would issue that invitation? I would think it would have to be an admin or Sec Life board member here for it to be effective, and I don't really see that happening. I invited Michael Shermer and James Randi to join the Brights thread that's now in Secular Activism weeks ago, after they each responded in the affirmative to my inquiry as to whether or not they really support this movement. Obviously neither of them has come here to join the debate.
I would be happy to defend the cause, which is still somewhat new to me. However, I ask whether we ought not to ask for some more substantive contribution from those who have proposed the idea to the Internet community at large. We could also invite Paul Geisert and/or Mynga Futrell, but something tells me they wouldn't be too interested in debating something they're trying to promote. What if they lose the debate? They scrap their movement? I doubt it.
Thoughts, anyone? I'm still ready and willing to go ahead with a debate with anyone who wants to take the pro position. Hell, I'll debate Richard Dawkins if someone can get him to come here and play. I don't doubt he can kick my butt all over the schoolyard intellectually, but it don't matter much to me. If I can be convinced that the idea has real value that transcends what I perceive to be its detrimental impact, I'll be happy to see it succeed.

vm

[copernicus]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
...but I don't know who we'd find to argue the con position. So far every prominent naturalist whose opinion I've heard is on the pro side, and I doubt any of them wants to challenge an issue they've already publicly endorsed.
Good point. I've sent an email to them with some comments on their linguistic machinations. If I get a reply, I'll ask them if they are interested in engaging in debate or otherwise publishing in this forum.

Who exactly would issue that invitation? I would think it would have to be an admin or Sec Life board member here for it to be effective, and I don't really see that happening. I invited Michael Shermer and James Randi to join the Brights thread that's now in Secular Activism weeks ago, after they each responded in the affirmative to my inquiry as to whether or not they really support this movement. Obviously neither of them has come here to join the debate.
I agree with you that the invitation would best come from the administration here. The prestigious founders of the Bright movement are busy people, and this may not be a forum that they are familiar with. Come to think of it, I'm busy, too. However, I'm not too big of an ego to rub elbows with the little people. :D

We could also invite Paul Geisert and/or Mynga Futrell, but something tells me they wouldn't be too interested in debating something they're trying to promote. What if they lose the debate?
I'm trying to contact them. Again, I don't know whether they will be interested in the ambience here. They might be willing to write an essay for the archives or engage in formal debate with some celebrity of an opposite persuasion. I don't think that you or I are notorious enough to be worth attracting the interest of people like Dennett or Dawkins. :)

I'm still ready and willing to go ahead with a debate with anyone who wants to take the pro position. Hell, I'll debate Richard Dawkins if someone can get him to come here and play. I don't doubt he can kick my butt all over the schoolyard intellectually, but it don't matter much to me. If I can be convinced that the idea has real value that transcends what I perceive to be its detrimental impact, I'll be happy to see it succeed.

Well, as I've said, I do understand and respect your position. Both of us seem to like the goals of the movement, but we disagree on whether this is the right way to go about it. My feeling is that this is the only way to go about it. You seem to feel that the present course of action can do more harm than good. If we debate, that's what the debate would be about. We would probably be arguing over tactics and strategy, not whether the war is justified.

[excreationist]

http://www.the-brights.net/backtalk.htm
This is the official site's counter-arguments to many common objections.
According to the site, it is supposed to be used as a noun and not an adjective. And it usually begins with a capital letter.

http://www.the-brights.net/being_a_bright.htm#Language%20Lesson
This talks about how to use the word.
....Perhaps you’d like to think of the "constituency of Brights" as a community of fellow travelers in life. If so, then you will refer to us all together as a community. How best to describe that community? We suggest that, while “The Community of Brights” or “the Brights’ Community” are appropriate, “the Bright Community” is problematic. In the last reference, bright is an adjective, and so it can have dual meaning. The plural form helps to delineate the term as a noun....

copernicus:
Talking about "the Bright movement" breaks that rule... the founders of the movement would prefer "the Brights' movement" or something since it can't be confused with the adjective "bright".

[excreationist]

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html

In The Guardian, Richard Dawkins always has "bright" as lowercase....

And says:
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.

If bright (or Bright?) is also an adjective, then you can say that we have a "bright president" (Richard Dawkins used lowercase!)... the new meaning of the adjective might become the default meaning like how the old meaning for gay was "happy" but now the term "gay" in modern usage refers to something/someone being homosexual. So in the future if someone reads a book that says "that's a bright idea" they might think it is referring to naturalistic atheists/agnostics or at least be confused a bit about the meaning.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi excreationist,

Would you be willing to defend the "Brights" classification against viscousmemories in a formal debate? (I'm assuming that you support the 'Brights').

Otherwise, it's best to keep the discussion here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60868).

Jason

[excreationist]

Nightshade:
I don't like the term "Bright" and have even emailed some people about it. So I'm not really a supporter of the term. What I wrote here is sort of relevant... copernicus was talking about linguistic things. (BTW Dennett (http://www.the-brights.net/dennett_nyt.htm) also uses the lowercase form of "bright") I had a link to the Brights' networks' various counter-arguments as a way of giving supporters some ideas.

Some people have been talking about possible debaters such as Dawkins and Dennett... here (http://www.the-brights.net/new_meet_some_brights.htm) are more fairly high-ranking people who support the term. Maybe someone can try inviting them for a debate or something... maybe the guy who coined the term, Paul Geisert (http://www.the-brights.net/faqs.htm#Who%20runs%20site), and co-director of the site would be interested - or maybe the other co-director Mynga Futrell (http://www.the-brights.net/faqs.htm#Who%20runs%20site) would be prepared to defend their term... after all they do defend (http://www.the-brights.net/backtalk.htm) the term on their site. Here (http://www.the-brights.net/dennett_good.htm) Dennett responds to a critical letter about his NY Times article.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Thanks for the links, excreationist. I just sent an email to the 'Brights' proponent website so perhaps we'll hear from someone soon.

Jason

[copernicus]

Originally posted by excreationist
Copernicus:
Talking about "the Bright movement" breaks that rule... the founders of the movement would prefer "the Brights' movement" or something since it can't be confused with the adjective "bright".
For the record, excreationist, I don't care whether my usage breaks the rules posted on the Bright site. If you want to know why, then ask me on the thread that Nightshade posted a link to.

[sedroray]

I am brand new here. My only experience with Fora is my use of the Brights forum, which is, itself, new. I am however, a proud supporter of the noun Bright. This may be over-reaching my capabillities, but, if you can not find a more suitable opponent for the pro side of this issue, I am willing. I certainly do not wish to see the debate lose for lack of a supporter. I read the rules for a debate, and I am concerned about the time deadline for a response. I drive a truck (22 wheels, 18 forward gears kinda thing) for a living, and I can only count on being home on weekends. I'll ask at the Brights forum and see if we can get a better supporter, but, if not, I'm game.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by sedroray
I am brand new here. My only experience with Fora is my use of the Brights forum, which is, itself, new. I am however, a proud supporter of the noun Bright. This may be over-reaching my capabillities, but, if you can not find a more suitable opponent for the pro side of this issue, I am willing. I certainly do not wish to see the debate lose for lack of a supporter. I read the rules for a debate, and I am concerned about the time deadline for a response. I drive a truck (22 wheels, 18 forward gears kinda thing) for a living, and I can only count on being home on weekends. I'll ask at the Brights forum and see if we can get a better supporter, but, if not, I'm game.
Hi sedroray, welcome to IIDB.

I appreciate your offer, but at this late date I am no longer interested in taking the antagonist's position in this debate. I have decided that the best opposition to the spreading of a meme I don't like is to avoid participating in its propagation by not acknowledging it.

Perhaps someone else here is willing?

vm

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by sedroray
I am brand new here. My only experience with Fora is my use of the Brights forum, which is, itself, new. I am however, a proud supporter of the noun Bright. This may be over-reaching my capabillities, but, if you can not find a more suitable opponent for the pro side of this issue, I am willing. I certainly do not wish to see the debate lose for lack of a supporter. I read the rules for a debate, and I am concerned about the time deadline for a response. I drive a truck (22 wheels, 18 forward gears kinda thing) for a living, and I can only count on being home on weekends. I'll ask at the Brights forum and see if we can get a better supporter, but, if not, I'm game.

Hi sedoray,

Though you may not have a debate opponent at the moment, there are plenty of people here who take an opposing position and you probably won't have much trouble finding one. According to some poll awhile back, close to 70% of the users here at IIDB disagreed with the 'Brights' label.

If you'd like to find some potential debate opponents, I'd recommend looking at the
Church–State Separation & Secular Activism (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=67) forum. In particular, from this old thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55722&perpage=25&pagenumber=1).

Best of luck,

Jason

[seebs]

I'm probably not the best representative for the anti- side, but I think it's a very poor choice of words. But, I'm not sure I'm properly qualified for such a debate.

[Pixnaps]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
I think that would be cool too, but I don't know who we'd find to argue the con position. So far every prominent naturalist whose opinion I've heard is on the pro side, and I doubt any of them wants to challenge an issue they've already publicly endorsed.

How about Jeremy Stangroom (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/about.htm) (scroll down), of Butterflies & Wheels?
He wrote an article arguing against the bright movement here (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=38).

[DigitalChicken]

I can find someone to argue the anti-side.

DC

[Speedy-Lube]

Well I didn't know what a Bright was a week ago but I can already tell you why this is stupid.

The very word Bright implies somehow that nature is beautiful and pretty and that a naturalistic viewpoint it somehow the lightside of the Force.

Truth is the world is harsh, violent, and nasty. There is as much bad as good, because every second of life hinges on something else dying.

A naturalistic viewpoint of the world is just a way for atheists to have holidays and crap, which we don't really need. Why celebrate the solstice? Why care about things like nature?

Isn't that how religions started out? By worshiping nature? I guess you could now say the difference is that nature is more explained, but if its explained, what significance is there to it?

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Speedy-Lube
Well I didn't know what a Bright was a week ago but I can already tell you why this is stupid.

The very word Bright implies somehow that nature is beautiful and pretty and that a naturalistic viewpoint it somehow the lightside of the Force.

Truth is the world is harsh, violent, and nasty. There is as much bad as good, because every second of life hinges on something else dying.

A naturalistic viewpoint of the world is just a way for atheists to have holidays and crap, which we don't really need. Why celebrate the solstice? Why care about things like nature?

Isn't that how religions started out? By worshiping nature? I guess you could now say the difference is that nature is more explained, but if its explained, what significance is there to it?
I think the term "Bright" is supposed to put the Brights in a better light, rather than nature.

Here Richard Dawkins is saying how "gay" probably helped gay people be seen in a more positive light:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.10/view.html?pg=2

Here Dawkins is saying that "Bright" is supposed to just be a cheerful word which kind of implies Brights are cheery. Like how gay people are kind of happy and gay. ("Gay" originally meant happy)
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html

http://www.sacbee.com/content/lifestyle/story/7085538p-8033409c.html
....Geister picked "bright" mainly because the word was positive, cheerful and memorable.
.......
Bright supporters say they want to coin a new meaning for an old word in the way that "gay" is now being used. "As with gays, the more brights come out, the easier it will be for yet more brights to do so," wrote Dawkins in the London Guardian on June 21. "People reluctant to use the word atheist might be happy to come out as a bright."

So basically the idea was to make people's lack of supernatural belief seem more tolerable and acceptable rather than trying to promote nature-worship.

BTW, there is a nature-worship group that atheists can join... it is called "United Universists".
http://www.universist.org/

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi guys,

Unless you wish to propose a formal debate, it's probably best to discuss the issue in the CSS&SA forum. There's a thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74787) on the issue in that forum now. You can also find links to several "Brights" discussions from Jacey's post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73727).

Jason

[Toto]

Before posting on the Brights in the CSSSA forum, please look over at least the recent threads, and try not to start duplicate threads or new threads that simply rehash old material. Thanks.

[Malachi151]

I'll argue against the use of the term Bright, what do I get when I win the debate? Will the Brights concede that their movement is ill conceived and then drop it? We can only hope.

Knowing that the future of humanity rests in my hands, I am now prepared to prove once and for all, by my vast powers of logic, which I will use to erect an unassilable wall, that the term "Bright" is factually damaging to the cause of atheism... if there is a cause of atheism ;)

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi Malachi151,

As I mentioned previously in this thread, this isn't the proper venue to debate the Brights issue, but is intended for setting up formal debates. Further informal discussion and debate will be split and moved to the CSSSA forum.

Anyways, I just sent a PM to sedroray so perhaps he might be willing to engage with you in a formal debate on the issue.

Jason

Edit: Malachi151's posts moved to CSSSA forum (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1431649#post1431649).

[Malachi151]

Well, I posted my rebuttal to their FAQ, and they removed, it, man those guys suck!

They have got to be the worst "freethinker group" ever created!

[Jinksy]

Do you have a copy of it? Could you post it somewhere on II?

[sedroray]

No, Sedroray is not interested in debating the worth of the name Bright. I think it is here to stay. You can support it or fight it, but debating it will not make it go away.

PS - The Bright's forum is not your typical chat type forum, it is a forum with a purpose. Rules at this forum are a little different than you might expect from other forums.

[Malachi151]

Oh, I'll be fighting it. The Brights now top my list of most hated groups, they are above Christians. Why? Because they seek to destroy the history of atheism and materialist philosophy, [flame deleted].


Edit: Let's keep things civil, please. - NS

[Corona688]

Originally posted by sedroray
No, Sedroray is not interested in debating the worth of the name Bright. I think it is here to stay. You can support it or fight it, but debating it will not make it go away. Unfortunately. The term's already done more to divide those of a naturalistic viewpoint than to unite them.