Brights in NY Times

[hgc]

Apparently Daniel Dennett wrote a column about the 'Bright' thing for the NY Times op/ed page.

Here is an exerpt from a letter in response...

I don't doubt that life can be uncomfortable for brights in ordinary civil society and in politics.

On the other hand, in intellectual and academic circles, brights usually feel free to make disparaging remarks about those with religious beliefs.

Mr. Dennett's equating of belief in ghosts, elves and the Easter Bunny with belief in God is not a bad example of the disdain that secular naturalists commonly show for religious believers.

What do you think?

NY Times Letters

 

[Dragonrock]

Of course they had to have one that shows atheists as immoral and suggests that the US is a religious government.

To the Editor:

The world's faiths have much to atone for, but Daniel C. Dennett should pause before equating nonbelief with "brightness" (Op-Ed, July 12). For most of the 20th century, officially atheistic regimes ruled a large part of the world.

I don't think that the prisoners of the gulag saw much that was bright.

JOHN J. PITNEY JR.
Claremont, Calif., July 13, 2003

 

[Brown]

On the other hand, in intellectual and academic circles, brights usually feel free to make disparaging remarks about those with religious beliefs.

Well, this morning on public radio, I heard the tables turned. The speaker, from a religious organization, casually remarked that Christians have moral values, and non-Christians do not. I suppose he felt he was merely stating a simple self-evident fact, and that he had no intention of disparaging anyone.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Using the term bright is just asking for trouble. Really, is it condescending enough?

~~ Paul

 

[hgc]

Using the term bright is just asking for trouble. Really, is it condescending enough?

~~ Paul

Oh, absolutely, but asking how much trouble are you willing to court would be the real point of this thread? (Sorry I didn't articulate that before).

I think most atheists would find it quite reasonable to equate or relate or compare belief in a [personal] God with belief in ghosts, elves and the Easter Bunny. But then would be reluctant to voice this opinion to their theist friends.

Similar situation to calling yourself a bright. It draws an unflattering comparison with non-brights, by virtue of the usual meaning for this word in its adjective form.

This is beside the point that it just sounds silly.

 

[TwoShanks]

Even the idea of someone referring to themselves as a "Bright" in real life makes me cringe. It's just all so very condescending and embarrassing for everyone concerned.

Huzzah for my first post!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Welcome, TwoShanks! Is there a OneShank?

~~ Paul

 

[hgc]

Welcome, TwoShanks! Is there a OneShank?

~~ Paul

Yes, but he's called Hop-a-long.

 

[HarryKeogh]

i second the notion (or is it third or fourth) that using the term bright is condescending and douche-chill invoking.

sounds "cult-y" to me.

 

[Yahweh]

I never did like the word "brights". It sounds too elitist and it undermines the integrity of the "dims" (... I dont know, brights vs. dims... I dont know what I'm saying).

I have to quickly respond to this editorial reply:

To the Editor:

The world's faiths have much to atone for, but Daniel C. Dennett should pause before equating nonbelief with "brightness" (Op-Ed, July 12). For most of the 20th century, officially atheistic regimes ruled a large part of the world.

I don't think that the prisoners of the gulag saw much that was bright.

JOHN J. PITNEY JR.
Claremont, Calif., July 13, 2003

You are not impressing anyone. Speak like a normal human being. You learned how to put a maximum number of big words into a very small amount of text, la-di-friggin-da!