Who squirms at the word bright?

[Kimpatsu]

Agreed the supernatural does not equal god, but anyone who beleives in the supernatural is not a Bright.

 

[Dogwood]

*sigh*

 

[Kimpatsu]

*sigh*

World-weary exasperation? You must be a cynic.

 

[xouper]

Kimpatsu: Agreed the supernatural does not equal god, but anyone who beleives in the supernatural is not a Bright.

Which is exactly the point Mark was trying to make and why he "sighed". I'm glad to see you finally agree with his point that not all atheists are "brights". I'll go one further and say that I know some atheists who are downright stupid, despite their atheism. By no means are all brights bright, contrary to your earlier assertion.

I refer you once again to the article by Dawkins.

Except Dawkins is not the authority on how "Bright" is to be spelled. Geisert and Futrell coined the term and if they capitalize it, that seems definitive to me.

aerocontrols: Did they do that with or without Dawkins' permission?

Why do they need Dawkins permission?

Kimpatsu: The point about everyone's favourite deist (Mr. Bidlack, are you reading this?) is that he is dim on this one issue, because it's the one area of his life where he refuses to apply the same rigorous intellectual standards. He says, "I believe, and so there!" I wouldn't trust a jury to return a just verdict based on that criterion. The Blessed Hal applies critical thinking in all areas but this one. Why the double standard? Not very... bright, is it?

The attitude you exhibit here is exactly the kind of arrogance that I do not want to associate with, and why I will not use the term "bright" to describe myself.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Wrong; all atheists are brights, but not all brights are atheists.

 

[Kimpatsu]

The attitude you exhibit here is exactly the kind of arrogance that I do not want to associate with, and why I will not use the term "bright" to describe myself. [/B]

This isn't arrogance, it's the truth. To believe in something without evidence is to reject critical thinking. As The Great Dawkins said, he is often accused of arrogance, but there are limits! Hal can beleive whatever he wants, but the credulity to believe in a god or gods when there is absolutely no evidence for them after 15 billion years is at odds with critical thinking, and thus the JREF mission.
Or are you confusing the person with the belief?

 

[Kimpatsu]

Except Dawkins is not the authority on how "Bright" is to be spelled. Geisert and Futrell coined the term and if they capitalize it, that seems definitive to me.

It may be that "gay" was once capitalised. As "bright" is still a new term, it needs capitalisation until it becomes familiar, thus dropping its capital letter status.

 

[xouper]

Kimpatsu: This isn't arrogance, it's the truth. To believe in something without evidence is to reject critical thinking.

That completely misses the point I was trying to make. Apparently I didn't make myself clear enough. There are two major errors in your argument against Hal as an example of a bright person who is not a "bright".

1. Just because a person deliberately chooses to use faith instead of critical thinking in one area does not mean they are not bright overall (in the intelligence sense of the word). Hal is an intelligent and bright person, regardless of his deist world view. Your insinuation that his deist view renders him stoopid is simply untenable. Your insinuation that "brights" don't ever do anything "dim" is also untenable (not to mention arrogant). In fact, Hal is a lot brighter than some "brights" I know, and this makes him a good counter-example to your assertion that there is any correlation between the noun bright (naturalist) and the adjective bright (intelligent).

2. Lack of critical thinking does not disqualify one as a potential bright (in the naturalist sense). A person can be a "bright" and have very poor critical thinking skills in general. A person can be a naturalist and still reject critical thinking skills in other areas of their decision making processes. Where in the definition of a "bright" does it say that one's naturalist world view cannot be entirely based on faith (as opposed to critical thinking)?

It may be that "gay" was once capitalised. As "bright" is still a new term, it needs capitalisation until it becomes familiar, thus dropping its capital letter status.

Is this how Geisert or Futrell justified capitalizing it? I couldn't find anything in their faq about this.

 

[xouper]

Kimpatsu: all atheists are brights,

Mark Tidwell already refuted that assertion.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Mark Tidwell already refuted that assertion.

No, Mr. Tidwell as disagreed with that assertion. I'm still waiting for evidence. (Refutation requires evidence, not merely disagreement.)

 

[Kimpatsu]

That completely misses the point I was trying to make. Apparently I didn't make myself clear enough. There are two major errors in your argument against Hal as an example of a bright person who is not a "bright".
1. Just because a person deliberately chooses to use faith instead of critical thinking in one area does not mean they are not bright overall (in the intelligence sense of the word).

This is not relevant. Hal is indeed intelligent, but he is not a bright.

Hal is an intelligent and bright person, regardless of his deist world view. Your insinuation that his deist view renders him stoopid is simply untenable.

I never said he was stupid. I haven't used the word "stupid" (or "stoopid") once in this thread. I said that Hal does not apply critical thinking to this one area. He critically examines claims of UFOs, fairies, ghosts, and ESP, but not of god. Why not?

Your insinuation that "brights" don't ever do anything "dim" is also untenable (not to mention arrogant).

You're reading something that's not there. Would you rather read this thread in another language? I can translate it for you, if you like.

In fact, Hal is a lot brighter than some "brights" I know,

I don't doubt it.

...and this makes him a good counter-example to your assertion that there is any correlation between the noun bright (naturalist) and the adjective bright (intelligent).

The only such correlations I've drawn have been humourous ones. Get a sense of humour. Brighten up!

2. Lack of critical thinking does not disqualify one as a potential bright (in the naturalist sense). A person can be a "bright" and have very poor critical thinking skills in general. A person can be a naturalist and still reject critical thinking skills in other areas of their decision making processes. Where in the definition of a "bright" does it say that one's naturalist world view cannot be entirely based on faith (as opposed to critical thinking)?

True, it doesn't, but find me a single bright who's position is faith-based as opposed to reasoned. I think you've missed my point; it is quite possible to be a "stupid bright" (or, rather, "stupid Bright") just as it's possible to be a depressed gay.

Is this how Geisert or Futrell justified capitalizing it? I couldn't find anything in their faq about this.

No, I was just spitballing. It makes sense, though, that when we coin a new term, we tend to capitalise it to emphasise its newness. As the word gains common acceptance, the need for emphasis that it's brand new and shiny lessens, and we take to treating it as a common noun. Just think: if we were debating in German, all nouns would be capitalised, and if this was Latin, there's be no capital letter at all! (Not to mention Japanese, Chinese, and Korean...)

 

[xouper]

Kimpatsu: No, Mr. Tidwell as disagreed with that assertion. I'm still waiting for evidence. (Refutation requires evidence, not merely disagreement.)

He did more than just disagree with it, since in theory, there is nothing inconsistent with a belief in something paranormal and being an atheist. It's true he has not yet cited an actual human being as an example, but likewise you haven't provided the necessary evidence that ALL atheists have no beliefs in anything paranormal. All it takes is one atheist who believes in astrology or dowsing, for example, to refute your assertion. I'd say the odds are not in your favor that ALL atheists are "brights".

Kimpatsu: Hal is indeed intelligent, but he is not a bright.

Yes, I already said that. More than once.

I never said he was stupid.

True, you didn't use that word, but you did disparage his intelligence by saying that people who have a deist world view are not very bright. Or did you say that in jest? Was your entire criticism of Hal in jest?

xouper: Your insinuation that "brights" don't ever do anything "dim" is also untenable (not to mention arrogant).

Kimpatsu: You're reading something that's not there.

OK, I stand corrected. My apologies. I assume then you agree that a "bright" can sometimes be "dim" and still be a "bright"? If so, then your criticism of Hal is unjustified. You implied he wasn't very smart because having faith in something isn't a smart thing to do.

Kimpatsu: The only such correlations I've drawn have been humourous ones. Get a sense of humour. Brighten up!

So when you said, "But we are bright, as well as brights. That's not a trap; I want the association." you were just being facetious?

True, it doesn't, but find me a single bright who's position is faith-based as opposed to reasoned.

It doesn't matter if I find one or not. The definition does not support your implied assertion that faith is incompatible with being a "bright". Being a naturalist by faith (even if only partly by faith) still qualifies one to be a "bright". The definition doesn't specify HOW one arrives at a naturalist world view, only that one has such a view. Given that, your criticism of Hal's faith in a scientifically untestable area is unjustified.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Most of what I write is in jest. Insert tongue firmly into cheek before touching keyboard. I often refer to Hal as the psychotic computer.
However, faith is indeed incompatible with being a bright, because brights are edfined as eschewing a metaphysical world view. Gods are metaphysical, so belief in a god by definition excludes you from being a bright.
Are you dazzled yet?

 

[JamesM]

"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."


It is, in my opinion, an ill-considered term, with an ill-considered definition.

I'm now getting really confused about who can claim to be a B/bright.
Perhaps, like me, you read the following excerpt from the Brights FAQ

Brights can be agnostics, rationalists, skeptics, atheists, objectivists, igtheists, and so on.

and thought to yourself "what the hell's an igtheist?". Apparently, it's a term invented by Paul Kurtz.
Admit it, you were dying to know.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Igtheist! I like it!

 

[BillyJoe]

"what the hell's an igtheist?". Apparently, it's a term invented by Paul Kurtz.
Admit it, you were dying to know.

Paul Kurtz seems to be setting himself up as the high priest of secular humanism which he treats as if it is a religion.
It's as sad a trend as this move towards brights (and I will no longer dignify it with capitalization)

 

[xouper]

Kimpatsu: Most of what I write is in jest. Insert tongue firmly into cheek before touching keyboard.

OK, thanks for the disclaimer. I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.

However, faith is indeed incompatible with being a bright, because brights are edfined as eschewing a metaphysical world view.

Faith is not defined only as belief in the metaphysical, so it is not necessarily incompatible with being a "bright". Faith can be any belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Just as a person might hold a deist world view on faith, so might a person hold a naturalist world view on faith. Less likely, certainly, but such a position is not ruled out by any of the definitions. This would also apply to people who are not well versed in science or critical thinking and take some of it on faith.

 

[xouper]

I just found this by accident on another board:

David Foster: If Dawkins wants to present arguments for his worldview, that's fine. But it's not intellectually honest to associate a word with positive associations ("bright") with a topic it has nothing to do with. It is if the religious people adopted the word "honorable" to mean "belief in God," and went around saying "I'm an honorable."

That's kinda how I feel about it too.

 

[tamiO]

I go back and forth. I like the idea of organizing a constituency and having a voice in the grand scheme of things, but the word is loaded.

Because the word is loaded, it gets attention through discourse (like in this thread). You may hate the word, but you are talking about it.

I have to wonder if homosexuals had a word that didn't work out before they hit upon "gay".

Has anyone thought about how Asians are going to sound?
"I am a Blight!"

For those of you who do not like the word bright, is it just the word?
Do you agree with the idea of forming a constituency?

 

[aerocontrols]

I have to wonder if homosexuals had a word that didn't work out before they hit upon "gay".

Question for the group: Did homosexuals select the word 'gay'? When did this occur? Who was behind it?