Brights movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Symbol of the brights
Enlarge
Symbol of the brights

The brights movement was started by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in 2003 to provide a positive-sounding umbrella term to describe various types of people who have a naturalistic worldview, without casting that worldview as a negative response to religion (as the terms "atheist", "infidel" or "non-believer" may be taken to do).

Co-founder of the Brights' Net, Paul Geisert coined the term and Mynga Futrell defined a bright to be "a person whose worldview is naturalistic—free of supernatural and mystical elements. A bright's ethics and actions are based on a naturalistic worldview."[1]

The naturalistic worldview may take many forms. For most brights a naturalistic worldview means simply that the world is "free of supernatural and mystical elements", while others may have conceptions falling under philosophical naturalism.

The hub of the brights movement is the The Brights' Net web site.[2]

Contents

[edit] History

Paul Geisert was a biology teacher in Chicago in the 1960s, a professor in the 1970s, an entrepreneur and writer in the 1980s, and the co-developer of learning materials and a web site for teaching religion in the public schools in the 1990s. He attended the "Godless Americans March on Washington" in 2002, which subsequently led to the idea of coining the noun bright. Geisert intended his "bright" noun coinage to allude to humanity's illumination during the Age of Enlightenment, an optimistic era when science and reason seemed to offer the key to the future. Geisert is now co-director of The Brights Net. The usage has been publicized and endorsed for its persuasive potential by Richard Dawkins in articles for The Guardian,[3] and Wired,[4] and by Daniel Dennett in the New York Times.[5]

[edit] The Brights' Net

Geisert and Futrell co-direct a network of Brights (the upper case usage indicates registration into a constituency with specified aims). The Brights' Net includes tens of thousands of individuals from 138 nations. The Brights' Net serves as the hub of communication and action projects in a civic justice movement. It has three major purposes:

  1. Promote a civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
  2. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
  3. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.

The Brights' Net states that it is not an anti-religious organization in either principle or action, and that it is working through educational means to create a level social and civic playing field for individuals, whether their worldviews are naturalistic or include supernaturalism.

Those who Register as Brights at the Brights' Net are deemed members of the "Brights internet constituency". There are Brights' local constituencies in London, Paris, several cities in Canada and the United States, and all over the world.

[edit] Who are the brights?

Within the definition[1] many but not all brights also identify variously under other terms or identities; atheist, humanist, secular humanist, freethinker, rationalist, naturalist, agnostic, skeptic, and so on. One of the purposes of the Brights Net is to include the umbrella term 'bright' in the vocabulary of this existing "community of reason."[6]

However, "the broader intent is inclusive of the many-varied persons whose worldview is naturalistic" but are in the "general population" as opposed to associating directly with the "community of reason." So persons who can declare their naturalistic worldview using the term 'bright' extend beyond the familiar secularist categories. (Registrations include some members of the clergy; Presbyterian ministers, and a Church History Professor/ordained priest.)

Dawkins' analogy in the aforementioned Guardian article is instructive, comparing the coining of 'bright' to the "triumph of consciousness-raising" that is the term 'gay'.

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". ... 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.

[edit] Notable brights

Main article: List of brights

[edit] Criticism

Some people (both religious and non-religious) have objected to the adoption of the title "bright" because it implies that the individuals with a naturalistic worldview are more intelligent ("brighter") than the religious.[7] For example, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal published an article by Chris Mooney titled Not Too "Bright" in which he stated that, although he agreed with the movement, Richard Dawkins's and Daniel Dennett's "campaign to rename religious unbelievers 'brights' could use some rethinking" because of the possibility that the term would be misinterpreted.[8] However, in his Wired article Dawkins states, "Whether there is a statistical tendency for brights (noun) to be bright (adjective) is a matter for research." Daniel Dennett, in his book Breaking the Spell, suggests that if non-naturalists are concerned with this connotation of the word "Bright," then they should invent an equally positive sounding word for themselves, like "Supers" (i.e., one whose worldview contains supernaturalism).

Geisert and Futrell maintain that the neologism always had a kinship with the Enlightenment, a movement which celebrated science, free inquiry, and a spirit of skepticism.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b Bright (n.)--What is the definition?. Frequently Asked Questions. The Brights' Net. Retrieved on 2006-11-04.
  2. ^ http://www.the-brights.net
  3. ^ "The future looks bright", The Guardian, June 21, 2003.
  4. ^ "Religion Be Damned", Wired, October 2003.
  5. ^ "The Bright Stuff", The New York Times, July 12, 2003.
  6. ^ What is the purpose of the Brights' Net?. Frequently Asked Questions. The Brights' Net. Retrieved on 2006-11-04.
  7. ^ Not So "Bright"--Dinesh D'Souza
  8. ^ http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/brights/

[edit] External links

Official sites

"Brights' Net" sites

"Brights' Net" national sites

Essays on the Brights movement and coinage

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/i/Brights_movement.html"