He guys,
This is a message for the people that I’ve been engaging with regularly over this blog.
When I first created this blog, I intended it to be just a sandbox for me to practice my writing and see how people reacted to it. But I’ve been getting more and more involved with debates over the subject of atheism, creationism, and other such issues.
I’ve been enjoying these debates – very much, in most cases. But up until now, that’s been my only real interest; to argue for my own pleasure and amusement.
Thing is, I’ve started getting more ane more serious. Some of my more vitriolic arguments got me to thinking. There’s a lot of friction out there in the world between those who have a naturalistic worldview, and those that have a worldview that includes the supernatural or mystical. And when I say a lot, I really do mean a lot.
So I’m concerned. I’ve always considered myself something of an anti-theist – but I’m coming to realize that barking up that particular tree is a waste of effort. I have a very naturalistic worldview. It’s a very beautiful and fulfilling and, as far as I am concerned, a very strongly validated worldview in terms of phsyical evidence and rational inquiry. As far as I’m concerned, it is the best worldview.
However, I can no longer go past that point. I’ve decided to self-identify myself as a Bright. The core of what it means for me to do this can be found at The Brights’ Net. Here’s the bit that’s most relevant here:
8. The Brights movement is a positive force
We intend to work to grow a constituency of Brights able to exercise social and political influence in a constructive fashion. The Brights movement is not by design an anti-religious force in society. The overall aim is civic fairness for all, which necessitates there being a place in politics and society for persons who hold a naturalistic outlook.
There is a human penchant for creating us/them classes in which the “them” is viewed as negative or repellant. Although some individual Brights may have negative views of persons who hold supernatural beliefs, the Brights movement does not proclaim superiority or a disdain for others. What is sought is social acceptance and civic equality. This movement unequivocally rebuffs not only verbal comparisons that cast Brights as lesser citizens than the religious, but also those that cast the religious as lesser citizens than the Brights.
So what does this mean for those of you that actually follow this blog?
I’ll be less quick to resort to vitriol, for one thing. I still intend to argue – strongly and forcefully – for both my cause and for the pleasure of argument. But I’ll do so with less of a mind towards attacking the worldview of others, and more to demonstrating both why I hold naturalistic worldview and why this is so beneficial. So some of the threads I’m involved in can expect a prompt change in stance. 
In light of this, I’m almost tempted to remove some of my older posts. A few of them are quasi-mystical, and the rest are outrightly anti-theistic. But I’ve decided to leave them up as a record of where I’ve been, since it will shed some light on where I’m going, and why.
Best of luck and civic fairness to you all.
Is this something you recently decided, or have you long identified yourself with “Brights”? And how does this help you define your own views without relying on someone else’s?
Comment by wizardsmoke — May 7, 2008 @ 6:52 am
Ha! Two firm, probing and insightful questions delivered in a tone of voice bordering on the bloody cheeky. I like it.
First up, this has been brewing for a while in the hindbrain, but since I’m as in love with Chirstopher Hitchens as it is possible for a heterosexual man to be, I didn’t find the Brights moving enough to get me interested.
Then I had a conversation with a guy named Brad Davis, which changed my outlook a bit. Then he challenged me to respond to a lecture, and on Monday in the course of carefully considering my response something went ‘click’. I thought about it some more on Tuesday, found out a bit more about the Brights, thought about it some more this morning, then decided I liked it and did something about it today.
So in short; I’ve been considering it for a while – it’s been about a year since I read ‘Breaking the Spell’ which was where I first came across the idea – and just recently had a ’straw-that-broke-the-camel’s-back’ moment.
Second question:
It doesn’t actually help me define my own views. It doesn’t define much of anything. For example:
So the only real ‘defining’ that’s included in the word ‘Bright’ is that I have a worldview that is naturalistic. I already had that, so it hasn’t ‘given’ me any views I didn’t already have, if that’s what you meant.
On the other hand, the overall effect of the Brights Movement seems – at least, it seems to me – like something that could actually bring about a bit of constructive change. It seems like a good idea to me that, instead of pouring down fire and ire by the bucketload upon the people I deign to disagree with, I can actually engage with them in an open discussion. It’s less fun for me, but could prove to be more constructive in the long run.
The whole point of the Brights is that it’s a kind of mass-consciousness raising endeavour. It’s trying to get rid of all the baggage associated with being an ‘atheist’ or ‘nonbeliever’ and so forth by creating a new word and concept – the concept of being a Bright – that could potentially change the way people think about the secluar/religious thing.
Consider it this way – if we draw a line in the sand and say ‘nature or God’, there’s always going to people who will resist for the hell of it because they see ‘atheist’ or ‘nontheist’ as a powerfully negative term, and also because peole tend to get their backs up very quickly if you push them into an ‘us versus them’ situation.
The problem is that we in the naturalistic camp are pretty much forced to rely on reason and persuasion to get our points across. Thought crime exists only in the realm of totalitarianism and religion, and I don’t think that any atheist would ever consider making a person’s choice in religion illegal.
So upon acknowledging this, the only thing we can do is make it as easy as we can for those believers on the fringe to make the move. Dawkins, Hitchens and Ayaan (an presumably Harris, ‘though I haven’t read any of his books yet) are all about creating dissonace in the Supers to make them ‘come to their senses’. But I think that if Supers were inclined to respond to intellectual dissonance of this kind, they wouldn’t be Supers.
So I think there’s something very good to be said for the idea behind the brights. Instead of leaping down the throat of a given Super that I disagree with, instead focus the energy and attention on establishing equality and fairness by combatting both discriminatory practices and the use of discriminatory language when used against Brights or other, non-identified people who have a naturalistic worldview.
Man…. That was a big post. I seriously thought that would be out and done with inside three paragraphs. I hadn’t realized I’d thought about it that much. Damn.
Comment by Ubiquitous Che — May 7, 2008 @ 9:38 am
It was interesting reading the conversation you had with Brad Davis and I’m definitely going to take a closer look at this Bright movement. Just “Bright” seems like such a silly word. It also seems to imply that those who are not Brights are dim, dull or, in other words, stupid. Anyways, I’ll leave my judging until I’ve had a look.
So are we really going to see a less brash Che now? I think I’m going to miss that little spark of disdain.
Comment by Zhatt — May 8, 2008 @ 6:06 am
Heh. You’re not to point out that ‘Bright’ implies that non-brights are dim, or that it’s silly.
The Brights are actually taking a few concept from the homosexual movement a while back. Calling yourself a ‘Gay’ is actually pretty silly, when you think about it. It’s just a positive-sounding label. And the opposite of ‘Gay’ isn’t ‘Glum’, it’s ‘Straight’ – another positive-sounding label.
So the opposite of a ‘Bright’ isn’t a ‘Dim’. The opposite of a ‘Bright’ is a ‘Super’, meaning someone whose worldview includes the supernatural.
See? A nice, happy, positive label for non-brights. And although it’s silly at the moment, the whole point is to use the word until it just becomes another part of language, and eventually the meaning will shift on its own.
And don’t worry – the disdain’s still there. It’s just that instead of letting rip at every opportunity, I’m holding it in reserve. It’ll still be there when it’s needed.
Comment by Ubiquitous Che — May 8, 2008 @ 9:18 am
Oh, and one last thing:
Not everyone with a naturalistic worldview is a Bright. The idea is that you have to self-identify yourself as a Bright. It’s not a label that can be applied to someone unwillingly. That’s actually kinda important.
Comment by Ubiquitous Che — May 8, 2008 @ 9:20 am
Heh heh, you seem pretty blindly enthusiastic about this new movement, Che. It’s almost a religious fervor.
Comment by wizardsmoke — May 8, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
Yes, ’smoke… You’ve seen through my elaborate façade to the relgious fervor that beats within!
ALL HAIL THE GREAT GOD ATHEI!!!!!!!
Comment by Ubiquitous Che — May 8, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
Did you hear what Mr Hitchens said about the Brights? I forget the exact quote, but the words “cringe-making” were involved… Naturally, this is the type of flair we can expect from the Shakespearean.
Comment by theism — May 16, 2008 @ 6:49 am
[...] visited his blog (Che’s, not Steve Irwin’s), rhetoric sans pareil, where I can across a recent post of his. In it, he talks about the Brights [...]
Pingback by Sense in a Senseless World « consider Him — May 22, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
Odd, never heard of it.
Thats a new one for me. I’m proud of you!!
Comment by trumpethope19 — June 3, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
By the way…you dont mind if I add you to my blogroll, do you?
And why do you rarely post anymore?
Comment by trumpethope19 — June 3, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
I’m skeptical of the “brights” movement. The only way it will avoid fracturing is if it avoids taking any political stances beyond simply arguing for the full inclusion of non-theists in political discourse. If it starts speaking out on specific issues, it is doomed, because the godless come in all stripes. The only thing “brights” necessarily have in common is their, err, “brightness.” (Which is why it is so infuriating when theists speak of non-theists as sharing a “worldview.”)
Comment by DD — June 23, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
Hmm, I didn’t put a smiley in my post. Weird. Feel free to not approve this one, heh.
Comment by DD — June 23, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
Okay, going through in order. Hope you guys are still tracking this thread.
Theism:
Yeah, I know what Hitchens said about the Brights and why he said it – he doesn’t like the idea of self declared free-thinkers joining up into groups. Given his history with socialism, I can see why. And oddly enough, I agree with Hitchens about the Brights. However, I still think that sometimes it is worth putting your hand up.
Trumpet: Thanks for the kind words – of course you can add me to your blogroll (presuming you haven’t removed me already due to inactivity on my part). And I haven’t been posting because I’ve been distracted – almost all of my spare time has been going into reading, not writing. But I’m working to remedy that now.
DD: You’re on solid ground to be skeptical. Organizing naturalistic free-thinkers is a bit like herding cats. I think that the fact that they stay so vauge in their terms will have the side-effect of avoiding fracturing. The Brights insist that the worldviews of any self-declared bright can be just about anything, so long as it is free from supernatural elements.
And the smiley came through on my screen – so yeah, that is weird.
Comment by Ubiquitous Che — July 14, 2008 @ 8:39 am