Asymmetrical Information

I think that the "bright" meme is excessively stupid. However, I hardly think that those calling themselves "brights" have a lock on arrogance and condescension, yes?

How bright? Almost as bright as any group which would 1) tell America that its religious beliefs entitle its members to special rights and exemptions not available to the non-religious or 2) tell America that its beliefs make its members more Heaven-worthy than the rest of its fellow citizens.

Since your presumption here seems to be that agnosticism, rather than any particular religious (or non-religious) belief is true, it would appear that the agnostics are asserting an intellectual superiority to all others. It might be interesting to form a group composed of political agnostics (as opposed to religious agnostics) which asserts that it is intellectual superior by virtue of its claim that its political goals are no better than anyone else's.

What about the second paragraph of Dennett's essay?

Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: "I'm a bright" is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view.

Jane, isn't your comment along the lines of criticizing homosexuals for thinking they're happier than everyone else because they sometimes prefer to be called "gay?"

Gay came to mean homosexual in a natural, euphemistic fashion, it wasn't picked out by homosexual people as a word they specifically liked. If they had explicitly picked it, they might well have been mocked, too.

It's not a boast, it's a proud avowal! Understand the difference? Me neither.

This recurring claims of "brights" that they're not implying the dimness of anyone else reminds me of the recurring claims by those guys in the Democratic-vs.-Republican-Presidents thread that they're not trying to draw any sort of invidious distinction between Democratic and Republican presidents.

It wasn't a giant octopus.

I know, off topic. So, in response to Raving Atheist, above, I point out that 'brights' supposedly include agnostics as well as atheists.

Raving, what you don't get is that, ultimately, there is no "truth." Like it or not, we all have belief systems, and if you think that you can prove God doesn't exist particularly to someone who doesn't use "proofs" as the basis of knowledge, you're deluding yourself--go read a little Goedel.

Agnostics, at least this one (though I prefer the word skeptics) don't think that they're smarter than religionists (including the unprovable belief that there is no God)--just more realistic and humble in recognizing the ultimate limits of epistemology.

And yes, the notion of picking a name that implies that people of differing beliefs are a little dim and thinking that it will be a popular meme is, well, a little dim...

And since I'm still here, I may as well substantiate what I said about brights including agnostics.

The Brights include those who are members of existing atheist, agnostic, freethought, humanist, rationalist, secularist, or skeptic organizations and those who are nonreligious and are not associated with any formal group.

That's from The Brights' Network website.

Dennett refers to agnostics as well:

Whatever your theology, you can firmly object when you hear family or friends sneer at atheists or agnostics or other godless folk. -NYT op-ed 7-12-03.

Eh... nonetheless, I think atheists could use a new face. I don't believe in a god, but I often hesitate to term myself atheist or agnostic. The term atheist, in particular, has some very negative baggage for me. In previous experiences I have found atheists to often be rather militant about their beliefs. Agnosticism has the side effect of denoting uncertainty about all kinds of knowledge, not simply regarding god.

A person's personal beliefs should be... personal. I am employed at a small business where about half of the individuals are rather zealous about the specific religion to which they subscribe. I respect them as individuals and for their religious beliefs, but I can't say that they reciprocate this respect.

If anyone can get a piece in the times asking that those of us who choose not to believe in a god simply receive respect and a bit of silence, I'm not going to jump all over them. Some issues are more delicate than others. Religion is more delicate. It demands empathy, respect and communication from those involved. I don't see the parties involved in this or similar discussions making such allowances.

The problem with the analogy between "bright" and "gay" is that the latter wasn't, originally, nearly as approving a term even if we pretend it was nothing more than a synonym for "happy". I'll admit that I don't know the whole history, but I suspect that the other meanings of "gay"-- implying showiness ("gaily colored") or irresponsibility ("gay abandon")-- had more to do with it being attached to homosexuals, regardless of whether it was chosen by them or for them.

There's nothing wrong with building a political movement based on the concept "members of this movement are smarter than non-members". After all, religious groups have built hundreds, if not thousands, of various successful political and religious movements around the obviously silly notion that they possessed moral superiority to nonbelievers. The problem here is that atheists are (a) badly outnumbered by theists, in the United States anyway and (b) not automatically inclined to agree with each other about much of anything (example: Ayn Rand and Joe Stalin? Both atheists). So starting an atheist political movement is a dippy idea no matter what name members give themselves.

On a side note -- religious belief and education level are negatively correlated. So it's not like there's no basis for stating that, at the very least, atheists are generally better-educated than theists are. It's just not a good idea, socially speaking, to point it out.

Hey Jane, I really like the "bright" label quite a bit. And yet, I don't think my religious beliefs make me smarter than the rest of my fellow citizens.

So, now what? :-)

Your fan,

Dean Esmay

Oh, and, uh, considering that I don't go out of my way to get offended by Jews calling themselves the "chosen people" or Christians who claim to be "beacons" and "washed of sins" that the rest of us are presumably filthy with, can I get a little slack for wanting a less dull and pedantic word to describe myself than "agnostic?"

If we can put up with Greens and Red-Staters and those who are "cleansed of sin," I think we can find some way to put up with a few folks who like to be called brights--even the stupid and obnoxious brights, of which there are clearly quite a few. ;-)

And the Christians don't do so well, politically speaking, when they walk around claiming that they're closer to God than the rest of us, do they?

The Bright movement is, IMHO, doomed for a number of reasons: that the non-militant atheists they want are mostly not militant enough to wrap themselves up in an atheistic/agnostic political movement; that there aren't enough of them; that they don't vote consistently on any issue, except perhaps abortion, which isn't enough to hold a movement together. But the sheer brainlessness of arrogating to themselves the word bright, and then expecting the 90% of the country that believes in God to go along, indicates that they're neither clever enough, nor sufficiently aware of what goes on in the minds of that remaining 9/10, to found a political movement that advances beyond the op-ed stage.

You may agree with their platform, Dean, but I wouldn't advise you to go around informing people that you're a bright, or attending political meanings to try to bring up the "bright message". Unless you want to see how fast you can trigger a backlash against atheists in both parties, that is.

Most religious groups that consider themselves to be the "chosen people" or feel that their members are the only ones destined for paradise didn't make a conscious, political decision to hold those beliefs. Their positions are a natural outgrowth of their faith. It's not like the Pope had a strategy session with his PR guys and decided the "You're going to Hell and we're not" approach was a sure-fire winner.

As Jane notes, groups that tend to push that angle tend not to do so well politically. And there are few things as annoying as a proseltyzing atheist.

I have to admit to being somewhat confused with the points some of y'all are making. As an atheist, I don't consider myself to be asserting anything. Certainly I do not assert that "there is no $DEITY", as that would be a very powerful sort of knowledge. Nor am I a variety of fence-sitter who claims to "not know whether $DEITY exists". I am, quite simple, someone who lacks an assertive belief on the topic. Much like most people lack a belief on whether Napoleon's ghost causes hailstorms in the midwest (as an outre example). There seems to be plenty of evidence that explains the generation of hail, so that I needn't posit a role for Napoleon's ghost. But if new evidence comes in on the subject, and it passes peer-review, then I may be inclined to have an opinion. But I'm not going to assert that "I don't know whether Napoleon's ghost has anything to do with hailstorms", nor am I going to put myself in an omniscient perspective and state that "Napoleon's ghost has absolutely no role in hailstorm generation". I just don't need to rule on the matter at all, as it is unnecessary to have any particular opinion on it in the absence of evidence. Atheists (except for the evangelical variants which are, more often as not, used-to-be-christian-fundamentalists) are a class of people who lack a particular set of beliefs, not people who are positing a whole different set of beliefs.

But that may just be me.

That said, I think calling atheists "brights" is probably unwise (at least) in the same way that "Free Software" is a bad name. Any name that requires a lot of explanation about what it *does* mean and what it *doesn't* mean is really bad marketing. Which, I gather, is the point of the whole exercise. To market one's (absence of) beliefs in a more palatable way than by using the term "atheist", which has a lot of negative (and inaccurate) baggage, as all these comments amply demonstrate.

Man, I could never be a bright.

That religion is just way too preachy for me.

Man, I could never be a bright.

That religion is just way too preachy for me.

Man, I could never be a bright.

That religion is just way too preachy for me.

Raving, what you don't get is that, ultimately, there is no "truth."

How are we to determine whether this statement is true or not, then?

I'm basically agnostic, and you couldn't pay me to call myself a "Bright". If I ever do, please slap me silly.

What the _hell_ are these people thinking of???

The concept of "Brightism" reminds me of an advertising campaign a few years ago. A software company, in a fit of self-aggrandizement, described their product as "Red Hot!"

Quite a laugh and a fair amount of embarrassing misunderstanding when it hit the European market...It didn't help that this advertisement coincided with the rise of Internet porn...

I am thinking of signing up with the "Boreds".....

How are we to determine whether this statement is true or not, then?

Phil: Rand's kind of argument only seems to appear when the topic is religion. In any other context, nobody would dare to make it. For example:

My Canadian fans can hear me on the radio on CBC at 4:30 EST this afternoon discussing the fast food lawsuits.

Jane, what you don't get is that, ultimately, there is no "truth." Like it or not, we all have belief systems, and if you think that you can prove Canada and radios exist particularly to someone who doesn't use "proofs" as the basis of knowledge, you're deluding yourself--go read a little Goedel.

So the truth is that there is no truth?

People who try to apply scientific methods to religion, belong among the Projectors in the Acadamy of Lagado.

The problem here is that organized religion is exactly that- ORGANIZED. They've been at this for 1000's of years. I see no problem with any counter movement- call it what you will- "Bright", "Hope".. whatever. There should be no shame in anyone who doesn't beleive in a God to come right out and say it and to try to recruit more to the cause if they believe strongly enough in it. The Christian's have whole TV networks dedicated to spreading their belief system for crying out loud! Why aren't Atheists doing the same thing.

I think if we come together (organize) with a compelling message that also has some secular moral code that people will have a harder time arguing against a non-religious viewpoint.

Comments are Closed.