Not Such a Bright Idea: Atheists Try a New Name

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/ ^ | September 29, 2003 | Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

[DittoJed2]

Not Such a Bright Idea: Atheists Try a New Name Albert Mohler Daniel Dennett claims that atheism is getting a bad press. The world is filled with religious believers, he acknowledges, but a growing number of atheists lack the respect they deserve. It's time for a new public relations strategy for the godless, Dennett argues, and he has just the plan. The central point of Dennett's strategy is to get rid of the word "atheist." It's too, well, negative. After all, it identifies an individual by what he or she does not believe--in this case the individual does not believe in God. A more positive approach would be helpful to advance the atheist anti-supernatural agenda. Dennett, joined by Richard Dawkins, thinks he has found the perfect plan. Two atheists in California have suggested that the anti-supernatural crowd should take a page from the homosexual rights movement's handbook. Homosexuals renamed themselves "gays" and changed the terms of the debate, they argue. As Richard Dawkins explains, "A triumph of consciousness-raising has been the homosexual hijacking of the word 'gay'.... Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an 'up' word, where homosexual is a down word and queer [and] faggot . . . are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; 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'." The word chosen to be the atheists' version of 'gay' is bright. That's right, they want unbelievers to call themselves brights. Give them an "A" for arrogance. Of course, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins are already specialists in the highest form of intellectual snobbery. Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, and Dawkins, a scientist at Oxford University, are well known for their condescending dismissal of all belief in the supernatural. Both address their scorn to anyone who believes in God or dares to question naturalistic evolution. Their plan, if successful, would put believers in God in the unenviable position of being opposed to "brights" who deny belief in God. This is, no pun avoidable, a diabolically brilliant public relations strategy. The real question is: Will it work? In "The Bright Stuff," an op-ed column published in The New York Times, Dennett simply declared, "It's time for us brights to come out of the closet." Now, that's an invitation sure to get attention. He continued, "What is a bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny--or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic--and life after death." Brights are all around us, Dennett claims. Brights are "doctors, nurses, police officers, schoolteachers, crossing guards and men and women serving in the military. We are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters. Our colleges and universities teem with brights. Among scientists, we are a commanding majority." Had enough? Dennett wants to be the Moses of the atheist cause, leading his people out of bondage to theists and into the promised land of atheistic cultural influence--a land flowing with skepticism and unbelief. The most absurd argument offered by Dennett is that brights "just want to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less." Those familiar with the work of Dennett and Dawkins will be waiting for the laughter after that claim. The same respect? These two militant secularists show no respect for religious belief. Philosopher Michael Rea of the University of Notre Dame couldn't let Dennett and Dawkins get away with such hogwash. 'The fact is," he asserts, "the likes of Dennett and Dawkins aren't the least bit interested in mutual respect." Dennett has suggested that serious religious believers should be isolated from society in a "cultural zoo." Dawkins has argued that persons who reject naturalistic evolution are "ignorant, stupid or insane." Well, now--is that their vision of "mutual respect?" As for the anti-supernaturalists calling themselves "brights," Rea argues, "The genuinely tolerant atheist will refuse the label; for the the very respect and humility that characterize her tolerance will also help her to see that in fact their are bright people on both sides of the theist/atheist divide."  [See Rea's exchange with Dennett] Timothy K. Beal, professor of religion at Case Western Reserve University, notes that the brights demonstrate "an evangelical tone" in their writings. Beal perceptively notes that, in their determination to be irreligious, these atheists have just established a new anti-religious religion. But what they really want is not only respect, but cultural influence. Dennett's New York Times column decried "the role of religious organizations in daily life," contrasted with no such public role for secularists. Of course, this claim is sheer nonsense. Dennett and Dawkins boast that most scientists and intellectuals are atheists. They are without influence? G. K. Chesterton once identified atheism as "the most daring of all dogmas," since it is the "assertion of a universal negative." As he explained; "for a man to say that there is no God in the universe is like saying that there are no insects in any of the stars." The Psalmist agreed, and spoke in even more dramatic terms: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'." [Psalm 14:1] The atheists are caught in a difficult position. They reject belief in God, but draw attention to God even as they shout their unbelief. In the end, they look more foolish than dangerous. This call for a new public relations strategy will likely backfire. Hijacking the term bright shows insecurity more than anything else. A movement of secure egos would not resort to calling itself "brights." Atheism may try to change its name, but it cannot succeed in changing its nature. This bright idea doesn't look so bright after all.    Article Resources

[balrog666]

Your approach to this is just like exmarine's - to cram every one of your "opponents" into a philosophical box of your choosing without regard to whether they fit. No dialogue, just denigration.

[tpaine]

"-- just about everybody does have rational faculties."
(You are excluded, tpaine).
141 -NutCBoy-


Is it not rational to ask why I'm excluded?

[Two bits you don't have the faculties to make a rational explanation, nutC.]

[exmarine]

I note with amusement that tpaine is voting for Ahh-nold (see his tag line). This is just more confirmation that I have made the right decision in voting for McClintock - a true conservative, man of principle, who won't prostitute his values for a victory! All those Christians who are voting for Ahh-nold should be ashamed - they are attempting (unwittingly) to synthesize secular-humanism with Christianity - the two don't mix!! They are also employing pragmatism (hoping it will help Bush or keep the Dems out), but in doing so, they are attempting to manipulate the future (playing God) since pragmatism's glaring weakness is its inability to predict the long run! Pragmatists can vote for Ahh-nold, I will vote moral values, and I will sleep just fine at night.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Your approach to this is just like exmarine's - to cram every one of your "opponents" into a philosophical box of your choosing without regard to whether they fit.

I have done nothing of the sort. All of the statements I have made on this thread are factually accurate.

No dialogue, just denigration.

For someone who chose a screen name that is offensive to most Christians and other posters, you certainly seem to be easily offended.

[Dimensio]

Atheism is a nihilistic religion of Epicurean materialism with worshipers as devout and fervent as any other.

No, it isn't. It's the abscence of theism. It's a lack of belief in deities. Any other philosophical beliefs are a seperate matter.

Potential generalization would in no way invalidate the definition's application to Atheists.

Except that it's confusing because it could just as easily refer to a group of Hindus. If I speak specifically of a group of Christians, I use the term "Christians"; I don't use the term "theists" unless speaking of the general group of theists without respect to a specific god being worshipped.

That was not my intent, just as I will attempt to assume that insult was not your intent with your use of the phrase "your chosen mythology" in post #114.

It was something of a rash reflex action, I admint.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

No, it isn't. It's the abscence of theism. It's a lack of belief in deities. Any other philosophical beliefs are a seperate matter.

Although I understand that negative assertions are convenient for the poser since they invert the burden of proof, I reject the imposition. Put positively, Atheism is not the absence of all belief in the supernatural, it is the belief that there is no supernatural. To continue to assert a generalized negativism makes all dialog circular and unproductive. Certainly you believe in something. After all, there is no point in communication if you actually believed in nothing.

Except that it's confusing because it could just as easily refer to a group of Hindus. If I speak specifically of a group of Christians, I use the term "Christians"; I don't use the term "theists" unless speaking of the general group of theists without respect to a specific god being worshipped.

No term has perfect applicability to any physical entity, especially one based upon collective belief. A more general categorization is valid and the term I used is perfectly accurate when applied to Atheists.

It was something of a rash reflex action, I admint.

I understand. It is perfectly natural for one to get emotional when one feels that their religion is being questioned. I fight the same temptation.

[Right Wing Professor]

Blatantly dishonest, as we've come to expect from the advocates of the One True Absolute Moral Code

Sure would be nice to read a thread without your Christian Bashing...

So you identify 'the advocates of the One True Absolute Moral Code' with Christians?

[NutCrackerBoy]

Is it not rational to ask why I'm excluded?

I was just funnin' ya.

[balrog666]

For someone who chose a screen name that is offensive to most Christians and other posters, you certainly seem to be easily offended.

Good. But I'm not offended, just amused at your conceit. If I was offended, I'd just call you a sh!thead and be done with it.

[RightWingAtheist]

Understand that this is not "atheists" in general, but members of Dr. Paul Kurtz's "Humanist Manifesto" outfit. There is more to this than mere unbelievers doing a bit of PR.

Someone finally gets it! "Brights," according to the definition of Dennett and Dawkins, aren't just any atheists, but those who adhere to the doctrine of secular humanism-a doctrine which, like all religions, is based in pure faith, without any actual grounding in fact. Atheists are as diverse politically and philosophically as Christians are, and I resent having far-left liberals defining my positions for me. It's particularly sad to see Dennett, a man whose work I admire and has been influential to me, resort to such divisive, politically-correct lows.

[Dimensio]

Although I understand that negative assertions are convenient for the poser since they invert the burden of proof, I reject the imposition.

Once again.
Theism = Belief in a god or gods.
A = without.
A + Theism = Without + Belief in a god or gods.
Atheism = Without belief in a god or gods.

I can "reject the imposition" that Christianity is the religion denoted by a belief that God embodied himself in the "Son" known as Jesus Christ and died to pay the price of humanity's sins so that those who believe in him will not face damnation, but that isn't going to suddenly make anyone who holds such a belief a non-Christian.

positively, Atheism is not the absence of all belief in the supernatural, it is the belief that there is no supernatural.

No, it's the abscence of belief in gods. This abscence of belief could just be an issue of lack of knowledge rather than outright rejection. Also, not all things supernatural are gods, so a belief in ghosts would not be inconsistent with atheism.

To continue to assert a generalized negativism makes all dialog circular and unproductive.

I'm sure that there's a way to parse this, but I don't think that I've had enough caffeine to do it at the moment.

Certainly you believe in something.

I believe and believe in a great number of things. It just so happens that none of those things are deities.

No term has perfect applicability to any physical entity, especially one based upon collective belief.

Some terms are more accurate than others. When trying to specifically address those who lack belief in gods, "heathen", because of its potentially broad application, is certainly less accurate than "atheist". You might as well call them "humans", because that also happens to be true.

It is perfectly natural for one to get emotional when one feels that their religion is being questioned.

Or when dealing with someone who insists that I believe something so that he or she can put me into a little box, regardless of the facts.

[tpaine]

I note with amusement that you're too cowardly to ping me when you make snide little remarks. Typical of the 'oswald style' exmarine.



It's really fascinating to use the campaign for this election for identifying the absolutists from the pragmatists on this board. -- And note how our absolutists most glaring weakness is their inability to plan for the long run.


The 'gov' of CA has no real political power under the present circumstances. Thus, all the shouting is futile. - It doesn't really matter in the short run, who wins.

Conservatism in CA, in the long run, -- if we're lucky, - could be helped if Arnie is elected.



Tom McC's supporters ~KNOW~ he cannot be elected.
Thus, there is no real choice.
-- Elect Arnie, or business as usual, for the long run.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The word skepticism was suggested as an alternative to atheism to avoid the connotation of adherence to a doctrine of denial (as opposed to mere disbelief) of the existence of God.

Dimensio replied: Am I "skeptical" of gods whom have been worshipped throughout history but of whom I've never heard? would think that I'd need to at least hear of a claim before I could be skeptical of it.

That's fine. But let me change the subject slightly. I believe it is perfectly right and good to say that USA is a Christian country. I say this even though I myself am a skeptic as to divinity of Christ.

So as a practical matter when engaged in discourse about the USA and atheism, there is an implied context, not just of any random religion, but of Christianity. As a self-labelled skeptic, as opposed to atheist, I think I am not likely to be assumed to be someone who would advocate the ACLU (strict secularist) line of strict First Amendment separation which in my mind is persecutive of Christians (in particular).

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Theism = Belief in a god or gods.
A = without.
A + Theism = Without + Belief in a god or gods.
Atheism = Without belief in a god or gods.

That is not how classical Greek works ("A" for effort, though). Although the etymological definition is always subservient to the accepted meaning of words, "atheos" would be constructively "without belief". It means a "disdain or denial of God" in practice. "Atheism" is constructively "a belief in an absence" and definitionally a belief that there is no God or gods.

I can "reject the imposition" that Christianity is the religion denoted by a belief that God embodied himself in the "Son" known as Jesus Christ and died to pay the price of humanity's sins so that those who believe in him will not face damnation, but that isn't going to suddenly make anyone who holds such a belief a non-Christian.

Common Christianity also includes the Arian belief that Jesus was not God and also Mormonism which holds that Jesus is one of many gods. In either case, it is a positive belief, just like Atheism.

No, it's the absence of belief in gods.

No, it is the belief that there are no gods. The absence or ambivalence in a belief in gods is agnosticism. I think that this is the definitional error that you are having trouble with. Most Atheists don't run from the positivism of their belief so I don't why this is a problem for you.

This absence of belief could just be an issue of lack of knowledge rather than outright rejection.

Exactly, a child raised with no exposure to religion would not be an Atheist since they would not be in a state of disbelief or denial in the existence of the supernatural, rather they would merely be ignorant of this belief. That person would best be described as agnostic, not Atheist.

It is intersting to note that Atheism or even agnosticism never occureed in any of the world's cultures until the development of western philosophy. It's like man is naturally drawn to religion, almost as if he was make that way.

Also, not all things supernatural are gods, so a belief in ghosts would not be inconsistent with atheism.

An Atheistic afterlife is a contradiction by any conventional understanding. If you are going to make up your own definitions, than there is no point in discussing anything with you.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Good. But I'm not offended, just amused at your conceit. If I was offended, I'd just call you a sh!thead and be done with it.

Thank you. I could not have asked for more thoughtful, well spoken articulation of your side of this debate. Bravo, please keep up the good work!

[Dimensio]

It's almost time for me to go home, so I can only address this quickly...

An Atheistic afterlife is a contradiction by any conventional understanding.

Many Buddhist sects are inherently atheistic (as in, they don't incorporate any gods), yet they still hold belief in an "afterlife" of sorts (though Buddhist beliefs in afterlife are not similar to more western religion beliefs in such matters).

[OWK]

My objection to the passive intermingling of theology and state, is a moral objection to compeling a man to pay for the advancment of ideas he does not condone or share.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Many Buddhist sects are inherently atheistic (as in, they don't incorporate any gods), yet they still hold belief in an "afterlife" of sorts (though Buddhist beliefs in afterlife are not similar to more western religion beliefs in such matters).

Very close. Although Buddhism, like Atheism, is a categorically nihilistic religion in that the fulfillment of existence is a destruction of self, it does posit a supernatural reality. Contemporary Atheism (Epicurean materialism) denies the supernatural. This subtle distinction can also cause ideological ambiguities within the context of this kind of discussion.

[exmarine]

there is an implied context, not just of any random religion, but of Christianity.

Wrong. It's not implied - it's explicitly stated by many of our founders on many occasions, and I can quote until the sun goes down.

I believe it is perfectly right and good to say that USA is a Christian country. I say this even though I myself am a skeptic as to divinity of Christ.

If you lived in 1890, I would agree. The USA most certainly WAS A christian nation as explicitly and openly declared by the Supreme Court in 1892 after a massive historical study - see Holy Trinity vs. USA. There used to be a Christian consensus. Is it today? NO, I do not believe there is a Christian consensus in America anymore and you can kiss your rights good-bye if Christians are not able to preserve some semblence of the Constitution.

[NutCrackerBoy]

My objection to the passive intermingling of theology and state, is a moral objection to compeling a man to pay for the advancment of ideas he does not condone or share. (emphasis mine)

I think we are agreed that the banning of active intermingling - such as a state-Established church - is entirely appropriate.

But you would go further and ban passive intermingling. I find that there are wide-ranging ideas advanced in various ways by government, including but not limited to the idea that religion is good, commemorating the ten commandments is good (just for example).

I myself find it morally objectionable for the government to hold a gun to my head and make me pay for other's individual "entitlements." There are some ideas advanced by that which I do not condone or share.

Since we apparently cannot forbid government from advancing any or all ideas, I find it objectionable to restrict mainly religious ideas, particularly those closely associated with the founding.