Are you a Bright?

[Acriku]

The future looks bright

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

Saturday June 21, 2003

The Guardian

I once read a science-fiction story in which astronauts voyaging to a distant star were waxing homesick: "Just to think that it's springtime back on Earth!" You may not immediately see what's wrong with that, so ingrained is our unconscious northern hemisphere chauvinism. "Unconscious" is exactly right. That is where consciousness-raising comes in.

I suspect it is for a deeper reason than gimmicky fun that, in Australia and New Zealand, you can buy maps of the world with the south pole on top. Now, wouldn't that be an excellent thing to pin to our class- room walls? What a splendid consciousness-raiser. Day after day, the children would be reminded that north has no monopoly on up. The map would intrigue them as well as raise their consciousness. They'd go home and tell their parents.

The feminists taught us about consciousness-raising. I used to laugh at "him or her", and at "chairperson", and I still try to avoid them on aesthetic grounds. But I recognise the power and importance of consciousness-raising. I now flinch at "one man one vote". My consciousness has been raised. Probably yours has too, and it matters.

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.

My favourite consciousness-raising effort is one I have mentioned many times before (and I make no apology, for consciousness-raising is all about repetition). A phrase like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should clang furious bells of protest in the mind, just as we flinch when we hear "one man one vote". 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.

[TMA_1]

glad athiests have a medium to share their gospel. :)

[Acriku]

Someone's jealous... :D

[TMA_1]

hehe nah I just think this thing is funny!

I read through the website, they wish to convert and take in people towards their specific ideals of a naturalistic viewpoint. The website says that the goal is to change the cultures of earth and take them on more of a materialistic point of view. (they wish to rid the world of religion as a serious belief on how things are and why we are here). They then decide that people will not join them if they call themselves athiests. They use the word Bright. This "umbrella" word as they call it is to trick stupid people into believing it is something completely different than what it is, and to give athiesm a "happier outlook". This is the exact definition of a cult. A social cult in this case. They even state in the website to express your views in order to get others to join (conversion). After that you explain that you are a bright. In no uncertain terms they say this is done to fool people. It is an "umbrella word" and that means that they have to sneak and lie in order to win people over.

This reminds me of L Ron Hubberd. When he was around he created various groups and cults. Scientology was the major focus in all of them, but all of the groups were named differently and had "different goals". The thing is these groups were made to trick people into thinking it wasent scientology, because it was given a bad name. its just freakish, and pathetic.

[TMA_1]

by the way, you have not posted one thing here in prp that does not have to do with athiesm in a long long time. I am talking months. Hundreds of posts and all of them about athiesm. wahts wrong man?

[Acriku]

Politics bore me. Whatsamanagonnado?

It isn't silly at all. What's silly is the fact that millions of people, due to mostly christian and catholic propaganda, think atheists to be immoral; demons; soulless heretics. The word atheist is looked down upon, it has negative connotations, so they made the word Bright to start over again and change people's negative attitude towards atheists and let everybody know that we are here to stay, so you better start liking it. The world is changing, TMA, changing for the better. Not for you, of course, but for rational people not blinded by faith and influenced by religious propaganda. Atheism is growing, and will not stop, so get used to it.

[SurlyPIG]

"So, what's the opposite of a bright? What would you call a religious person?"

Possible antonyms include dim, stupid, poorly lit? Possible euphemisms of antonyms include of non-photo-intense, illumination-challenged?

This is the exact definition of a cult.

If you think that a bunch of people who want society to refer to atheists as Brights is a cult, what the heck does that make religion?

EDIT

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.

Hmm...interesting...

[Egeides]

I'm not so sure about this thing saying scientists are more atheists than the average population.....

ESPESCIALLY this 93% when I know that most scientists that are considered as the "greatest" were theists... I'd need more to see.

[TMA_1]

propaganda? I am not the one with an agenda acriku. You need to look at yourself and watch for hypocracy.

The difference between religion and cult activity ace is this. in what I believe personally, I dont try to hide ideas and beliefs in "umbrella" words and otehr ways to con people into believing what I believe. I also dont submit people to peer pressure, as it is hard because so many christians do those bad tactics, and now days with the decline of sympathy for christians is rising, it is harder for us in general. I dont alter my words and promote ideas blanketed by agendas. You want to know what I believe? read the bible, it is open to you.

acriku you are totally right. The world is changing, and that is why I am happy. It is changing for the worst. that is the best time for us, dont you see? we never die. and the fact that things are at their worst shows that either christ is going to come, or something horrible and catastrophic is going to happen with obvious global implications. I wouldnt laugh at this, but you may if you find it comical. laughter is quieted by death. I hope you actually do find God some way man. I really do.

[zamboe]

I also dont submit people to peer pressure, as it is hard because so many christians do those bad tactics, and now days with the decline of sympathy for christians is rising, it is harder for us in general.

Unfortunately you are right, some Christians do apply ways that are not appropiate to promote Christianity, in fact the ways have been found out as ilegal way to get money for those who promote it.

[Acriku]

My "propaganda" is in no way equal to the amount of propaganda spouted by religious people.

in what I believe personally, I dont try to hide ideas and beliefs in "umbrella" words and otehr ways to con people into believing what I believe.

Oh please, it isn't a con. This is what the website had to say about the umbrella term...

One would find the "umbrella" (of the Brights) extending over a large proportion of persons who claim as their philosophical or worldview identity one or more of these: skepticism, atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, objectivism, rationalism, igtheism, naturalism, secularism, Humanism, scientism.

Many Brights already fit comfortably under the subculture rubric of the "freethought community" or the "community of reason." But there are many nonreligious folks who do not join these communities. Many, many more potential Brights, though, would not even be aware of these communities of reason.

This simple noun term gathers up all persons (nonreligous and in the "community of reason) with a naturalistic worldview under the same umbrella. Under the broad umbrella of Bright, these people can have social and political power in a society so infused with supernaturalism.

There is no con, because when I say I am a bright, this can only mean I have a naturalistic worldview. No trickery, or cons, it is what it is.

I dont alter my words and promote ideas blanketed by agendas.

Who alters words, and what agendas do these said people have?

acriku you are totally right. The world is changing, and that is why I am happy. It is changing for the worst. that is the best time for us, dont you see? we never die. and the fact that things are at their worst shows that either christ is going to come, or something horrible and catastrophic is going to happen with obvious global implications. I wouldnt laugh at this, but you may if you find it comical. laughter is quieted by death. I hope you actually do find God some way man. I really do.

You'll find yourself to be waiting a loooong time. Remember, people have been waiting for 2000 years. You're just another one of those hopefuls. And what gave you the idea that something horrible and catastrophic is going to happen? You just have the "feeling", like a dog sensing an earthquake? Hmm...er...can't...hold...much...longer...HAHA! There I said it.

[SurlyPIG]

More you say?

...surveys show that about 40 percent of scientists believe in God.

http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/aasi/aasi0343.htm

NOTE : The quotation of a religious site is intentional.

TMA:

The difference between religion and cult activity ace is this. in what I believe personally, I dont try to hide ideas and beliefs in "umbrella" words and otehr ways to con people into believing what I believe. I also dont submit people to peer pressure, as it is hard because so many christians do those bad tactics, and now days with the decline of sympathy for christians is rising, it is harder for us in general. I dont alter my words and promote ideas blanketed by agendas. You want to know what I believe? read the bible, it is open to you.

Don't you think it's possible that it is no umbrella at all, and this is literally how these people feel? And don't you think it's conceivable that others perceive the tendancies of your religion to contain many umbrellas as well? Some say that the sheer advertising and preeching of peace and love are a veil that hides thought control, homophobia and the paranoid abuse of homosexuals (note: I am not alleging this, just playing Devil's advocate...ooh irony alert hehe)

The "umbrella" you refer to is the desired replacement word for an outside word with connotations thrust upon the whole of a group by people not in the group. It is not atheists trying to hide their own, it's atheists trying to correct the conceptions of others. And you have to admit that he has a point about kids being secular, or at least not affiliated.

[Caid Ivik]

Brights? Some kind if Illuminati? ;D I can say, that this is how atheists bump up from the bottom of religiousity and start creating their own, new religions. First they will be rather primitive in our eyes, but once we'll have from them a new progressive, creative philosophy, which might help us in understanding the truth. Keep up the good work, Acriku!

[Hawat]

Strange, recently i heard from various sources (of course "clerical" sources) that the even the state churches can list increasing visitors. But that's of course only christian propaganda to disguise the true facts...

I hope you don't claim objectivity for your words, Acriku.

I don't think that atheism is the new "religion" for the coming eras. The foundation of pure rationality is something that not everybody will accept, it doesn't satisfy their hunger for a reason for existence (regardless of how "stupid" it may be). Many people just want spirituality and there are enough people who are seeking it in various forms.

"like a dog "sensing" an earthquake"? He has two eyes to see that this world will collaps if humanity will go on acting like it does now.

[Acriku]

Hawat, I'm going off of the national consensus, where christianity has gone down and both nonreligious and Islam has risen.

The foundation of pure rationality is something that not everybody will accept, it doesn't satisfy their hunger for a reason for existence (regardless of how "stupid" it may be). Many people just want spirituality and there are enough people who are seeking it in various forms.

It seems to satisfy me more than religion? To each his own I guess. I didn't say it would happen over night, this takes time and sooner or later people will gradually give up on the supernatural. Evolution of the mind, so-to-speak.

"like a dog "sensing" an earthquake"? He has two eyes to see that this world will collaps if humanity will go on acting like it does now.

I don't know many dogs that are active in today's crises, but then again we're already changing what we do. The breakthroughs of genetics is one example.

I have no intention to make my own religion Caid :P

[Phage]

Even as a strong atheist and Dawkins fan I must admit this entire "Plan" sounds a bit silly and extreme. I usually agree with Dawkins but this entire thing sounds cultish and New Age.

However I do agree children should not just automatically believe whatever their parents believed, to me that's just rather superfial. I'm not saying it's wrong to believe what your parents believe after you have honestly and thoroughly examined it, but to just believe your whole life merely because your parents believed is very disingenuine.

[Phage]

Also I admit that I likewise believe the rationalist-materialist viewpoint needs to be missionary. Basically because this best serves what I believe is true(truth I believe should be shared), makes the system more open(systems that actively compete against and interact with others do better then those which close themselves off) and will in the end lead to an atmosphere in which more correct judgement can be made (since they will be based on evidence and not superstition.)

Anyone who actively cricizes the idea of spreading beliefs is a hypocrite, since you are trying to spread your anti-missionary attitude in a missionary manner. Christians, Muslims and some Buddhists who condemn this attitude are also hypocrites if they merely judge them for trying to spread themselves, because Christianity, Islam and some Buddhist sects are explicitly missionary religions. Jesus and Mohommad said to spread the faith. In this sense the Xian and Muslim can say I am wrong, and try to refute me, but to say I shouldn't even try to spread my beliefs at all is to invoke a double-standard. I say let us all try to spread our beliefs in a free and civil manner, exchanging ideas so that we may all get a good chance to change our minds, learn from others and get closer to the truth.

I'm not saying to spread beliefs by force, because I value freedom of conscience. I am saying to spread beliefs through writing, argument and debate. I think in the end of this cultural form of natural selection, where we pit beliefs against eachother and examine them under evidence, rationalistic materialism will win out(other factors being equal). As will a more scientific viewpoint of our world.

Some may state that this is far fetched, but I will note it only appears this way because the major religion have a 2000 year head start. More so, if we go to the roots of such religion and religious thought in general.

Science and rationalism however have only been around a mere 400 years, and they have already begun to displace religion on major issues: ethics, the origin of life, the structure and begginings of the cosmos as we know it, the nature of disease, the motion of the planets etc.

Modern day Christians and Muslims believe much differently then their midevil age breathren did, and this is not due to christianity or islam. This is due to science, reason and evidence.

[Caid Ivik]

I have no intention to make my own religion Caid :P

Yes, of course, you've just joined one.

[Apollyon]

The future's bright, the future's orange...

[nemafakei]

Not if you're colourblind it isn't...

[Dunenewt]

Then what colour is it?

[SurlyPIG]

More of a blue I believe.

[Edric O]

God, how much more elitist can atheists get? "Bright", "Enlightened", "Evolved"... ::)

What don't you give up the charade and just call yourselves Ubermenschen?

[Acriku]

We wouldn't have this "bright" term if people weren't given endless propaganda from the Christians and the Catholics that atheists are immoral savage beasts from hell.

[Edric O]

Funny, I've never seen any of this vile anti-atheist propaganda that you keep talking about. Just where is it, exactly?