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

[Ogmios]

They weren't, I am not sure where he is getting his information, but I would really like to see and read the link.

I hope I did that right, Dataman, can you give me a link to your source for this information?

[balrog666]

Well, allow me to extend our welcome to another voice for rationality.

[Ogmios]

I am trying to be anyway, have not had a chance to debate on this subject much, the ice cores were fun to refresh on, and the lost squadron is fun to read about, now if they would only pull out and restore the B-17's.

I really like those planes, and would like to see the bombers saved if possible

[Ogmios]

Oh and thank you, it is nice to be here, although this thing is going to become addicting if I don't watch myself.

[jennyp]

I too want to see a cite

What's a cite?

You're joking, right?

Let me say as politely as possible that this subject has nothing to do with "brights" unless you, the bright, are asking me, the dim, to do your research for you.

Oooh, no need to get snippy about it. Just because your claim that the planes were discovered under "thousands of layers" of ice is melting before everyone's eyes...

I remember seeing the layers myself since it was either TLC or the Discovery channel that had cameras in the shafts. They showed the rescuing process and the layers. They mentioned the problem that 4.5 feet of ice per year presents. If you need a web photo, feel free to use the search engines available with which, I understand, you are familiar.

This is good - a cite, of sorts even! So here's what I get when I do a search for "Lost Squadron" on the Discovery Channel/TLC website. But fear not, I am relentless. Here's a page from the Lost Squadron website, which features layers and layers of t-shirts. Unfortunately this is a different Lost Squadron. But we're getting close, I just know it! This page shows the Glacier Girl in the snow, but I think this is after pulling it (in pieces) up thru the hole. At any rate, I can't make out any ice layers in the picture.

Well, that's all the cites I could find which could possibly support your claim of the planes buried under "thousands of layers" of ice. Now, if you could honor us with your own research, maybe we could verify this claim of yours.

Or were you merely, ummm, caught up in the spirit of the moment, and wish to retract that claim?

[balrog666]

Or were you merely, ummm, caught up in the spirit of the moment, and wish to retract that claim?

Being a fundamentalist Young-Earth-Creationist means never having to admit you lied to the heathen! Clueless recruits ensnared by deliberately misleading them must count for some brownie points in the afterlife or something.

[Heartlander]

Yes. (In Dimensio's sense. A.k.a. "nontheist".) Why do you ask?

First, I apologize for the delay of my response.

As an atheist (aka ‘nontheist’), do you believe that our consciousness (along with our universe) came from mindlessness? Do you believe that our consciousness sprung out of a universe void of purpose, value, morality, and intellect?

When I say that the atheist believes the part is greater than the whole, I am basically saying that the atheist should believe himself or herself greater than where they believe they came from… Now back to point, it is incumbent on the atheist to prove that all came from mindlessness just as it is for a theist to prove ID. For the record, I am for letting science advance but my problem is the motive science currently has… aka prove mindlessness only.

The ‘Brights’ in this article are highly influential in academia and anti-theistic. To compare the possible creator of our universe and consciousness with the tooth fairy (as Dawkins did) might be cute and humorous to atheists… But I believe the tooth fairy to be mindlessness. Dawkins should be aware that no one believes the universe was created by the tooth fairy but ‘he’ believes in a; mindlessness, purposeless, moral less, valueless, and unintelligent creator.

If you or any one chooses to leave money under his pillow for the garbage that comes out of his mouth… Well, he might not believe in the tooth fairy but it appears he counts on them.

[DittoJed2]

I do believe it, and you are certainly entitled to whatever you wish to believe. Won't begrudge you that. By the way, just curious, are you the same Ogmios who writes articles for Wiccans on the internet? Here's an example of his/her work: http://www.twpt.com/christianpagan.htm

[Ogmios]

No, can't say that I am, I just liked the Celtic name for Hercules, so I use it when the opportunity arises, nothing religious in it's use for me at all.

[DittoJed2]

It was just a rather unusual name, so I did a google search and that's what I found.

[Ogmios]

And that was a fascinating article, thank you for the link.

Can't say that I agree with it entirely, but it is rather unjudgemental, so I don't have anything bad to say about it either.

[JesseShurun]

you seem to be quite a fair minded person, concerned with not being judgemental and morality. Can I ask what your religion is, if you are not an atheist like you claim Thanks

[Ogmios]

I am an agnostic Christian, if that makes any sense to you.

I do not believe that any particular Christian denomination has the answer, I believe that each Christian must find his or her own path to Christ.

[DittoJed2]

You're welcome. Don't agree with it being unjudgmental. Very little in life is without judgments, including this article. It seeks to define Christianity in its own way, while we Christians seek to define it as we believe the Bible would have us to do. Not surprised you liked it though (seeing you're into Celtic stuff. This Ogmios claims to be a former Christian who is now on a "continental Celtic path").

[Ogmios]

I hope that wasn't offensive to you, but that is the way I believe, each person has their own relationship with Christ, and I do not believe that one size fits all, and I do not believe that Christ did either.

Again, that is just my personal belief, I do not judge other peoples beliefs, because I would not want them to judge mine.

Christ also did not feel that it was right to judge other people, therefore I do my best to live up to that expectation.

[DittoJed2]

Jesus didn't want people to judge self-righteously. He did say we could judge a person by their fruits, however. There's a difference. All life is full of judgments.

[Ogmios]

I can agree with that, I just have not been on this forum long enough to make any judgements about anyone, and I won't.

I will give each and every person a fair and equal chance to show themselves and their personal beliefs, and I will choose from there who I will and who I will not discuss certain subjects with.

But I have a long way to go before I can make any type of judgement regarding that.

I enjoy talking with people that have many different opinions, I learn a lot that way, and can use that knowledge to my benefit, hopefully anyway.

Geez, 9:02, I'm late, gotta go and moderate a chat forum.

I will try to get on later, but I may not get a chance, unless the server crashes again, as it usually does.

Good night

[JesseShurun]

nothing offends me any more. But I have to say agnostic (unknowing) Christian ---does not compute.Christ is the Head, we are the Body. Actually Christ said that we, the Church, the body, will sit, are sitting, in judgment of everyone who denies Christ, right now. Do you study the Word?

[Dataman]

Oooh, no need to get snippy about it. Just because your claim that the planes were discovered under "thousands of layers" of ice is melting before everyone's eyes...

It's out there if you care to spend the time to look. But this is all peripheral to the previously stated problem.

Remember the moon dust problem? Scientists with their evolutionary presuppositions feared the dust would be so deep it could swallow up any craft that attempted to land. After a trip they found that their presuppositions and calculations needed to be "adjusted" since they found nearly no dust. It's a similar set of presuppositions that suffered when the lost squadron was found. Now all we need to do is wait for the "adjustment."

I expect you to dismiss any anomaly with the wave of a hand as usual. Regardless, unless "science" gives more than a theoretical guess as to why the planes were 250 feet deep in 50 years it will be a problem discussed in future classrooms while the facade continues to crumble.

[Ogmios]

Sorry, but discussing my religious convictions and beliefs is not what this forum is for as far as I am concerned, therefore I shall have to take this opportunity to let you know that I will not continue to discuss it.

It seems to me that you are probably going to make some sort of judgement on me based on my probable response, therefore I shall not respond.

Thank you and have a nice evening