http://www.the-brights.net/ -- A place for those with a naturalistic worldview
 

The Brights

Those of you with a naturalistic (i.e., not including supernatural or superstitious elements) worldview may be interested in the website at [url="http://www.the-brights.net/"]http://www.the-brights.net/[/url]. It was founded in 2003 by folks who wanted to start a movement to counter the popular opinion among religious folks that non-religious folks are necessarily less moral and ethical than religious believers, and to stand up for the civil rights of those who do not believe in a religion.

- - -

A few years ago I was astonished, in another forum, by a woman who asked what "athiests" believed in ( to which I commented that there's no "athiests' Bible" :-) ) and then said something along the lines of, "If you don't believe in God, then you must think it's okay to murder, rape, and steal whenever you want."

After I picked my jaw off the floor (not easy for a llama -- but I was not yet a llama then), I proceeded to inform her that such was not the case. I then said that I doubted she had come to that conclusion on her own, and asked her who had taught her that atheists must necessarily think murder, rape, and theft were okay. She never replied.

- - -

If you've had experiences such as mine (and I wouldn't be surprised if they're more common in the U.S. now than they were before 2001), you may be interested in some of the resources at The Brights' Net, even if you're not interested in joining the movement.

- - -

Now, about the name:

The founders (Mynga Futrell and Paul Giesert) had noticed that most of the English terms for folks who had a naturalistic worldview were unsatisfactory because they were either (a) negatively defined (e.g., "atheist" = non-theist), (b) too narrow (e.g., "atheist", "agnostic", and "humanist" refer to various fractions of all the folks with a naturalistic worldview; those terms are non- or only partially-overlapping), or (c) already taken ("Naturalist" is an obvious tag, but its long-established meaning of someone who studies nature would be too confusing). Because for so long religious believers have been a very large fraction of society, all potentially-appropriate words tend to be already defined for convenience from a religious point of view.

So, they took inspiration from the adoption of "gay" by the homosexual community (another discriminated-against minority) and decided to use "bright" as a noun, often capitalized.

It doesn't take long to see the main disadvantage of that choice -- critics can seize upon the [i]adjectival[/i] definition of "bright" as "smart" and charge that the adoption of "Bright" by the new movement is a sign of arrogance or elitism (even though it's a noun, not an adjective, in that context). Indeed, several articles that soon appeared in the media dwelled upon that very theme rather than discuss the substance of the topic.

There's been debate, but no one's come up with a convincing more-satisfactory alternative, and the movement basically just tries to keep discussion with critics focused on more substantive aspects.

[QUOTE=cheesehead]It doesn't take long to see the main disadvantage of that choice -- critics can seize upon the [i]adjectival[/i] definition of "bright" as "smart" and charge that the adoption of "Bright" by the new movement is a sign of arrogance or elitism (even though it's a noun, not an adjective, in that context). Indeed, several articles that soon appeared in the media dwelled upon that very theme rather than discuss the substance of the topic..[/QUOTE]

So what? You've already mentioned "gay", which also means "beautiful", so I'd guess they should be aware that negative PR is not the way to go. :wink:

But thinking twice, gays and Brights are supposely equally bad for certain people...

P.S.: I've just heard the term "Brights" for the first time.

Mystwalker, sorry to say this, but the original meaning of "gay" is happy, not beautiful

You're right, my bad. :redface:
Learning something new every day. :wink:

[quote=Cheesehead] It was founded in 2003 by folks who wanted to … stand up for the civil rights of those who do not believe in a religion.[/quote] I have no experience of the other stated reason, a supposed [quote=cheesehead]… popular opinion among religious folks that non-religious folks are necessarily less moral and ethical than religious believers,…[/quote] so I will leave that alone. But as for standing up for the rights of any particular group of citizens it is difficult to see how anyone could disagree with that.

I too, like Mystwalker and I suspect many others, had never heard the word Bright used as a noun in this way. So following cheesehead’s link I did a bit of reading on their website. What exactly is a Bright ? Well, their definition is: [quote=The Bright Website]…a person whose worldview is naturalistic - free of supernatural and mystical elements. A Bright's ethics and actions are based on a naturalistic worldview.[/quote] Okay, but what do they mean by [I]Worldview[/I]? [quote=The Bright Website][B]worldview:[/B] the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world; a set of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or group.[/quote] Hmm, a set of beliefs about life. But what are these beliefs?

[quote=The Bright Website] Being a bright and “registering as a Bright” sets one apart from those whose worldview contains deities, ghosts, life after death, angels, fairies, etc.[/quote] Okay, so they [B]don’t[/B] believe in fairies and hobgoblins, but what, apart from being [B]set apart[/B], do they believe in? [quote=The Bright Website]… a desire to strive for change and work for a "level playing field" of social and civic acceptance of all persons,[/quote] Seems reasonable, but what does it actually mean?

It means first that they want to set themselves apart so as to distinguish themselves from all those folks who believe in fairies, deities and hobgoblins in order to work towards the social acceptance of all persons. Is it just me, or is that actually a contradiction? The way to work towards the social and civic acceptance of [B]all[/B] persons is to do away with distinctions and differences, not by creating them.

Ten years ago, when I first moved here, a bunch of ten year-old schoolchildren were looking at different religions, comparing their differences and noting their similarities. In the rather naïve way that children often have, they thought it would be really cool to go visit some of these religions in their churches. So that’s what they did. They got their teacher to take them to a whole bunch of different churches so that they could experience for themselves these differences they had been reading about. And to the surprise of absolutely no one at all, except possibly themselves, they found that the similarities are much much bigger than the differences. When some of the folks at these churches found out what the kids were doing, they joined in too. So after a couple of months there was this whole big movement of people of all ages going round to each others churches, singing each others hymns, blessing each others weddings and mourning at each others funerals.

Ten years later this is called [B]The World Church[/B], and hundreds of people from all over the County participate in it, bringing folks with different beliefs and backgrounds together at a different church each month to sing hymns, sit on the grass outside afterwards and have a picnic and put their differences aside and behave like human beings towards each other. My girlfriend and I, though not particularly religious ourselves, participate in this, along with quite a few other non-religious folk, because we see it as a positive way of bringing people together, trivialising our perceived differences and magnifying our similarities.

Did you know that Muslim parents have the same hopes and aspirations for their children as Christian parents do? Did you know that Jewish parents worry about their kids being out late at night the same way you do, and pretend to fall asleep in the armchair in front of the TV while anxiously awaiting their children coming home, the same way you do? I could go on, but I think you get the point. The way to eliminate differences is to bring people together, not split them apart into factions that work only for themselves.

Despite the fact that I fit their definition, I won’t be joining the Bright’s.

[QUOTE=Numbers]Ten years ago, when I first moved here, a bunch of ten year-old schoolchildren were looking at different religions, comparing their differences and noting their similarities.[/QUOTE]

So it seems you're most likely quite a bit older than I thought you were...

(10 years after you first moved to Beetlegeuse? :grin:)

I once made a similar mistake over your location. In England there is a motorway (what you would call a freeway) called the M42. When I saw that you were “hopefully near M43” I got the road atlas out to see where the M43 was. I found an M40, an M45, an M48 but I couldn’t see the M43 anywhere. I was just about to ask my girlfriend if she knew where the M43 was when it dawned on me what you were talking about. :surprised :wink:

[QUOTE=Numbers]I have no experience of the other stated reason,[/quote]Perhaps if you had experience of folks telling you that you were less moral/ethical/principled than they were, just because you didn't share a certain supernatural belief with them, you'd have an easier time grasping the concept of the movement.

[quote]I too, like Mystwalker and I suspect many others, had never heard the word Bright used as a noun in this way.[/quote]Not surprising. Part of Mynga Futrell and Paul Giesert's goal is to popularize that as a new definition, and they certainly don't pretend that it's commonly used that way yet by many people.

[quote]So following cheesehead’s link I did a bit of reading on their website. What exactly is a Bright ? Well, their definition is:[/quote]"A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview." Short and simple.

[quote]Okay, but what do they mean by [i]Worldview[/i]?[/quote]Same as others mean by it. One can look it up in Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged, where it's defined as a translation of the German word [i]weltanschauung[/i], whose first definition is "a conception of the course of events in and of the purpose of the world as a whole forming a philosophical view or apprehension of the universe".

I've seen "worldview" in print many times. A couple of years ago, in a shopping mall, I was asked by a theological student to participate in a survey about my "worldview" for a course project. I immediately knew what she meant, and she didn't try offering any definition of "worldview" as though she expected that an average mall shopper would not know it.

[quote]Hmm, a set of beliefs about life. But what are these beliefs?[/quote]As one might infer from the phrase "a naturalistic worldview", these beliefs would be ones based on the natural world, not any supernatural extension suppoed to exist in addition to the natural world.

[quote]Okay, so they [b]don’t[/b] believe in fairies and hobgoblins,[/quote]The citation of "deities, ghosts, life after death, angels, fairies, etc." is merely a list of specific examples of [i]supernatural[/i] (i.e., non-natural) or [i]mystical[/i] entities, for the aid of those who are not clear on what [i]naturalistic[/i] means.

[quote]but what, apart from being [b]set apart[/b][/quote]Well, any group is "set apart" from those who are not in the group. "Set apart" is not a phrase of any particular special importance in this context. You're the one applying special emphasis to it for some reason.

[quote]do they believe in?[/quote]I hope you'll pardon me for commenting here that it almost appears as though you're determined to make this more complicated than it really is. You've already seen and quoted the answer to your question: they believe in [u]naturalistic[/u] beliefs -- i.e., those pertaining to the natural world.

[quote]Seems reasonable, but what does it actually mean?[/quote]Means what it straightforwardly says.

[quote]It means first that they want to set themselves apart[/quote]No, that's [u]not[/u] the first meaning. The first of the movement's three major aims is "Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements." Says so right in the middle of the home page.

[quote]so as to distinguish themselves from all those folks who believe in fairies, deities and hobgoblins[/quote]... which has already been established previously in our discussion of the definition of members of the group ...

[quote]in order to work towards the social acceptance of all persons.[/quote]Actually, they're only claiming to work toward the social acceptance of the group whose definition we've been discussing. Not that there's anything wrong about working toward acceptance of [i]all[/i] persons -- just that the movement's aims are more limited than that. It seems to me that in current American society, believers in the supernatural have no particular problem being accepted by society.

[quote]Is it just me, or is that actually a contradiction?[/quote]No contradiction.

[quote]The way to work towards the social and civic acceptance of [b]all[/b] persons is to do away with distinctions and differences, not by creating them.[/quote]Fine.

So why is it that your words give an appearance of trying to create a difference, by your individual emphasis (by [b]bold[/b]ing) on the "set apart" phrase which does [u]not[/u] have any special emphasis on the Brights' site?

[quote]Did you know that Muslim parents have the same hopes and aspirations for their children as Christian parents do?[/quote]Of course I know that.

[quote]Did you know that Jewish parents worry about their kids being out late at night the same way you do, and pretend to fall asleep in the armchair in front of the TV while anxiously awaiting their children coming home, the same way you do?[/quote]Well, aside from the factual detail that I personally have no children, of course I know that.

[quote]The way to eliminate differences is to bring people together, not split them apart into factions that work only for themselves.[/quote]So why do you appear to be trying to create the impression that the Brights movement is trying to split apart anyone? In reality, the movement is [i]trying to bring together[/i] people who have generally been categorized separately as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", and so forth. People belonging to established churches already have a social structure bringing them together; there has heretofore been no overall social structure performing the same service for the group of people meeting the definition of "Bright" as given above.

[quote]Despite the fact that I fit their definition, I won’t be joining the Bright’s.[/QUOTE]Okay. Your privilege.

I do request that you refrain from misrepresenting the Brights as being a divisory movement.

[quote=cheesehead] "A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview." Short and simple.[/quote] Short, yes, but simple it is not. To properly understand what that means we have to know what they mean by both naturalistic and worldview. Let’s start with naturalistic.

[B]Webster’s[/B] defines it as: [I]characterized by, or according with naturalism[/I], and they define naturalism as: [I]action, inclination, or thought based only on natural desires and instincts[/I], and also as: [I]the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena[/I].
[B]Chambers[/B] defines naturalistic as: [I]characterized by naturalism, or the realistic treatment of subjects in art and literature.[/I], which again requires us, to know what naturalism means. But naturalism has perfectly legitimate definitions as a literary style, an artistic style, as a theatrical movement and even as the study of the natural sciences. There is also Ethical Naturalism, which posits that ethical terms can be defined in non-ethical terms, and there is also Sociological Naturalism, which suggests that the social world and the natural world are roughly identical. This does at least suggest that there is more than one way of interpreting the term naturalistic depending on which definition of naturalism you choose.

Dictionary.com defines it as [I]Imitating or producing the effect or appearance of nature[/I]. By this definition a plastic palm that is imitating the appearance of nature can be regarded as naturalistic. Therefore, naturalistic is not necessarily the same as natural, in the sense in which I would use the word, because a plastic palm does not occur naturally, and neither does theatre or art. We also have to remember that what is or is not natural in the eyes of one person may seem downright odd in the eyes of someone else. I like eating Pork pies and find that perfectly natural. But my Jewish friends consider that to be almost a sin and decidedly not natural. So just because you have decided that you are comfortable with your definition of naturalistic does not imply that everyone else shares your definition or would agree with you about what does or does not fit into your definition. I therefore consider it to be entirely appropriate to ask the folks who are using the word to describe themselves what they think it means when applied to them, particularly when we consider that the point of the exercise is to determine whether their definition applies to me.

The most I could get from their website was that it means not believing in [I]…deities, ghosts, life after death, angels, fairies, etc.[/I]. Which strikes me as being a pretty negative definition that doesn’t tell me anything about what they do believe in, unless you consider believing in not believing to be a belief. But then again, [quote=cheesehead]…a list of specific examples of[I] supernatural [/I](i.e., non-natural) or [I]mystical [/I]entities, for the aid of those who are not clear on what [I]naturalistic [/I]means.[/quote] you consider it entirely appropriate for them to provide an aid to understanding of this word, but inappropriate of me to use it or to refer to it. I hope you can see the inconsistency there.

Now let’s consider worldview. I had never heard the word until I read it in your post. At first sight it looks like it might be one of those words that means what its constituent parts mean, [I]view of the world[/I]. But there are many words that do not work like this; a tallboy is not a tall boy, it’s a piece of furniture, and a weighbridge is not usually a bridge, and although a foot is the thing on the end of my leg and a ruler is a king, a foot ruler is a measuring stick. So taking things at face value is not necessarily going to get us any closer to the truth. The fact that a theological student assumed that the average mall shopper would know what the word means, and that you assume that you conform to her estimation of an average mall shopper is, largely, irrelevant. That simply demonstrates that two people who met in a mall had heard the word before but does not confirm that their definitions were the same. So, once again, I consider it to be entirely appropriate to ask the folks who are using the word to describe themselves what they think it means when applied to them, particularly when we consider that the point of the exercise is to determine whether their definition applies to me.

From their website we learn that they use it in the regular way that would appear to be the most straightforward interpretation of the term. It means: [I] a set of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or group.[/I] A set of beliefs, as I have already pointed out, that are actually a set of non-beliefs, because while they repeatedly tell us what they do not believe in they quite pointedly do not tell us what they do believe in. But they do tell us that being a Bright [I] sets one apart from those whose worldview[/I] does not conform to theirs. The first three words in their explanation of what being a Bright means are [B]sets one apart[/B]. Those three words are the ones that persuaded me not to join them. Those three words are what the rest of my post was about and that was why I put them in bold. Precisely because they are not given any special emphasis on the Bright’s website but they do, in my view, have a special significance in the context of the rest of my post. I put them in bold so that the reader would see them and know what I am talking about, where the quote comes from and the context in which it was used.

To understand why [I]sets one apart[/I] is so important we first need to settle a few things about what they say on their website. You say, [quote=cheesehead]Actually, they're only claiming to work toward the social acceptance of the group whose definition we've been discussing.[/quote] but their own website says…[quote=The Bright's Website]Being a bright and “registering as a Bright” sets one apart from those whose worldview contains deities, ghosts, life after death, angels, fairies, etc. and affirms a desire to strive for change and work for a "level playing field" of social and civic acceptance of all persons, whether they hold a worldview with or without supernatural elements.[/quote] otherwise. And since it is the obvious contradiction in their own stated mission that I am talking about I am going to stick with the wording on their website.

You confirmed in your post that…[quote=Numbers] The way to work towards the social and civic acceptance of [B]all[/B] persons is to do away with distinctions and differences, not by creating them.[/quote] by affording it the one-word comment [I]Fine[/I]. And yet you claim not to see the contradiction between that and the stated aim of the Bright’s to set themselves apart as a means to achieving the same aim. You cannot bring people together by setting them apart. I really don’t know any simpler way of saying it than that. Creating yet one more arbitrary distinction between groups of people who end up talking the language of [I]Them[/I] and [I]Us[/I] is not the way to go about bringing people together. You cannot bring people together by setting them apart.

Then you say that [quote=cheesehead]…the movement is trying to bring together people who have generally been categorized separately as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", and so forth.[/quote] which actually means that they are only bringing themselves together and everyone else can go to hell. While what I am talking about is bringing the whole of humanity together, Jains, Buddhists, Atheists, left-handed Catholic homosexuals, Australian-Jewish unmarried mothers and anyone else who wants to jump on the train, because the way to bring people together is by not setting them apart or making distinctions between people based on differences that in a world view that encompasses the whole world rather than being confined to some mid-west suburban mall are totally arbitrary and trivial.

Then you ask…[quote=cheesehead] that you refrain from misrepresenting the Brights as being a divisory movement.[/quote] while my whole point is that all movements create divisions. The Boy Scouts create a division between those who are in, and those who are not. The Red Cross creates divisions between those who are in, and those who are not, between those who can and those who cannot get aid. Even this forum creates divisions. Any religion, race, creed, sex, belief, occupation, hobby or whatever creates divisions. Some of these we can do nothing about. You can’t help being American and I don’t hold it against you, but creating a movement based on that difference only serves to emphasise that difference between us rather than to trivialise it. All movements create divisions.

And as for [quote=cheesehead] Perhaps if you had experience of folks telling you that you were less moral/ethical/principled than they were, just because you didn't share a certain supernatural belief with them, you'd have an easier time grasping the concept of the movement[/quote] So why not do something particularly moral and ethical to prove your point, like treating it with the contempt it deserves, for example, rather than by creating one more arbitrary division in a world that already has far too many of them?

Responses to parts of your latest post, Numbers:

[QUOTE=Numbers][b]Webster’s[/b] defines < snip > naturalism < snip > also as: [i]the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena[/i].[/quote]That is the one appropriate here.

Webster's Third New International has somewhat different wording for this: "2 : a theory that expands conceptions drawn from the natural sciences into a world view and that denies that anything in reality has a supernatural or more than natural significance".

[quote][b]Chambers[/b] defines naturalistic as: [i]characterized by naturalism, or the realistic treatment of subjects in art and literature.[/i],[/quote]but that's not what is meant in the "Bright" definition.

[quote]But naturalism has perfectly legitimate definitions as a literary style, an artistic style, as a theatrical movement[/quote]... none of which are relevant to the "Bright" definition ...

[quote]and even as the study of the natural sciences[/quote]... which is only indirectly relevant to the Bright definition.

[quote]There is also Ethical Naturalism, which posits that ethical terms can be defined in non-ethical terms, and there is also Sociological Naturalism, which suggests that the social world and the natural world are roughly identical. This does at least suggest that there is more than one way of interpreting the term naturalistic depending on which definition of naturalism you choose.[/quote]I don't think that an unbiased scan of the web site would take long to rule out the alternatives you propose.

[quote]Dictionary.com defines it as [/quote]C'mon ... dwelling on alternative definitions is just obfuscation, as demonstrated by your own words --
[quote]The most I could get from their website was that it means not believing in [i]…deities, ghosts, life after death, angels, fairies, etc.[/i].[/quote]So you have now [i]confirmed[/i] that you understand that the web site specifically states that Brights do not believe in deities, ghosts, life after death, angels or fairies.

Is disbelief in deities, ghosts, life after death, angels or fairies really relevant to the definition about "[i]action, inclination, or thought based only on natural desires and instincts"[/i]? No -- so your inclusion of that definition seems more suited to obfuscation than to sincere clarification.

Is disbelief in deities, ghosts, life after death, angels or fairies really relevant to the definition about "[i] the realistic treatment of subjects in art and literature"[/i]? No -- so your inclusion of that definition seems more suited to obfuscation than to sincere clarification.

Is disbelief in deities, ghosts, life after death, angels or fairies really relevant to your listing of "a literary style, an artistic style, as a theatrical movement", "Ethical Naturalism" and "Sociological Naturalism"? No -- so your inclusion of that list seems more suited to obfuscation than to sincere clarification.

[quote]This does at least suggest that there is more than one way of interpreting the term naturalistic depending on which definition of naturalism you choose.[/quote]But your inclusion of all those interpretations [i]after you confirmed that you understand that the web site specifically states that Brights do not believe in deities, ghosts, life after death, angels or fairies[/i] suggests that you are not proposing all those alternatives in good faith.

[quote]But then again, you consider it entirely appropriate for them to provide an aid to understanding of this word, but inappropriate of me to use it or to refer to it.[/quote]Now you've crossed over into out-and-out untruth. At no time have I said it was inappropriate for you to use or refer to "naturalistic" (or "naturalism"? -- I'm not sure of your exact antecedent).

[quote]I hope you can see the inconsistency there.[/quote]I think most readers of this thread can see your insincerity there. There is no such inconsistency, because I never did what you accuse me of doing.

[quote]From their website we learn that they use it in the regular way that would appear to be the most straightforward interpretation of the term. It means: [i]a set of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or group.[/i] [/quote]Thus, again you admit that you know how the website uses that term and, therefore, that your enumeration of possibly-relevant alternative interpretations is insincere.

[quote]But they do tell us that being a Bright [i]sets one apart from those whose worldview[/i] does not conform to theirs.[/quote](* sigh *) The definition of [u]any[/u] group sets it apart from those who are not in that group. So what?

You referred to "Muslim parents", thus [i]setting them apart[/i] from not only non-Muslim parents, but also all non-parents.

You referred to "a bunch of ten year-old schoolchildren", thus [i]setting them apart[/i] from not only nine-year-old and eleven-year-old schoolchildren, but also from all children not in school and even all adults!

So you apparently have no qualms about setting apart one group from the rest of humanity. You just have qualms about saying so.

[quote]The first three words in their explanation of what being a Bright means are [b]sets one apart[/b].[/quote][u]False.[/u]

As you can clearly see on the home page at [url="http://www.the-brights.net/"]http://www.the-brights.net/[/url], under the headline "What is a bright?", the first explanation is "A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview" and its first three words are "A bright is". [u]The words "sets", "one", and "apart" do not even appear on the home page ![/u]

Please stop fibbing.

[quote]Those three words are the ones that persuaded me not to join them. Those three words are what the rest of my post was about and that was why I put them in bold.[/quote]So, why do you misrepresent their importance by falsely claiming that they are "The first three words in their explanation of what being a Bright means"? Hmmm?

[quote]Precisely because they are not given any special emphasis on the Bright’s website[/quote]... so you had to dig into the site, past the home page anyway, to find them.

[quote]but they do, in my view, have a special significance in the context of the rest of my post. I put them in bold so that the reader would see them and know what I am talking about, where the quote comes from and the context in which it was used.[/quote]Oh? Then why do you misrepresent where the quote comes from and the context in which it is used? It's [b]not[/b] "The first three words in their explanation of what being a Bright means".

[quote]To understand why [i]sets one apart[/i] is so important we first need to settle a few things about what they say on their website.[/quote]Yes, we do, starting with your explanation of your misrepresentation of what they actually do say ...

[quote]So why not do something particularly moral and ethical to prove your point,[/QUOTE]You've demonstrated that right now you're not in an especially strong position to recommend that someone else do something moral and ethical.

Cheesehead,
I think it completely unreasonable of you to expect that i confine my reading of their website to the home page.

Click on your link to their page.
Scroll down to their FAQ
Click on "What is this internet constituency"
Read paragraph 4.

Then come back here and tell me that I have misrepresented what they say.