Posted on 09/29/2003 7:09:06 AM PDT by 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.
|
So much so, that I am a rational anarchist.
Another example of the left trying to sugar coat evil by renaming it. Just shows that to the other evils they are guilty of, they are adding deception.
Wherever your classics professor is (assuming you ever had one), he or she must be cringing! Again, etymological construction is always subservient to the accepted meaning of words. Second, the prefix in question is not a definitive "non-" as you assert. It also functions as the English equivalent of "ir-","il-","un-", etc. and can have the corresponding meanings like "contradictory", "lacking", "without", etc. Third you ignored the root, which is not a proper cognate. Finally, even if you were to follow this through using "theos" as "deity" over to "theism" as the "belief that deities exist" , then the most direct transliteration of "Atheist" would be "belief that no deities exist." If you don't believe me, then check out a book or do a web search. I'm not going to tutor you.
Uh, skepticism is an ism.
Yes. (In Dimensio's sense. A.k.a. "nontheist".) Why do you ask?
Look, js, you aren't even a skeptic. A skeptic should suspend judgement on evolution and you don't.
Sure I do. There is no specific detail of evolutionary that I am committed to as a belief. But in order to have my acceptance of the concept overthrown I would first have to see all the scientific dating methods overthrown, including:
Next I would have to see DNA relationship evidence discredited in some major way -- the same DNA reasoning that identifies parents and children. If parents and children cannot be matched by DNA, then we cannot trust DNA to reveal other relationships by common descent. So I am very interested in this field. Gore3000 is on record that when entire genomes for certain key mammals are revealed, his theories will be vindicated. This will probably happen in my lifetime, so I am holding my breath for the results.
Next I would be impressed by the discovery of some barrier to macroevolution other than probability. Probability is interesting only when you fully understand the processes being modeled, which we don't. When we understand the processes, the probability argument will have greater weight. Again, I'm holding my breath.
Next, I have to say that I am open to personal revelation. I don't expect it, but I'm open to it. Bring it on.
Many of your listed dating methods have been discredited. Their value can be realized by the fact that layers are still dated by index fossils and index fossils are still dated by layers. I wonder why?
If your dating methods were accurate, why is Neanderthal dated by how thick the flint tools are?
If your dating methods are accurate, why is it impossible to use them to distinguish between a 5000 year old mummy and a 150 year old Victorian fake?
Next I would have to see DNA relationship evidence discredited in some major way --
Discredited? It is still in the process of being established. Since you all claim that science is "self-correcting," how long before we see some of those corrections in DNA interpretation (you call it evidence)?
Next I would be impressed by the discovery of some barrier to macroevolution other than probability.
Some barrier to macroevolution? It shares the same barrier as that of little green men on Mars. Macroevolution exists only in the mind of the daydreamer. It has never been observed (observation is the first step of the scientific method) nor is their the slightest physical evidence for it.
You will perhaps give me a specific example of a dating method that has been discredited. Other than when it is misused, as in attempting to date fossils where the original carbon has been replaced by menerals.
This hardly has anything to do with atheists putting on lipstick but ok, just one:
Ice core dating has always been questionable but the discovery of lost squadron in Greenland showed that the annual ice buildup could be measured in meters rather than inches. Of course the rescuers of the planes were not prepared to dig 250' to find planes that had landed only 50 years earlier. The miscalculation was based on the incorrect assumption that the layers in the ice were annual. Thus the ice core dating was based on a false premise.
Let me anticipate your response:
You will deny that the dating method has been discredited because it was not discredited by the right people. In order for any tenet of evolution to be discredited, it must be done so by evolutionists who have an interest in keeping their jobs.
I grant you that you should not change your mind unless you have adequate reason to change it, but protection of the theory is not an adequate reason to reject all opposing data out of hand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.