Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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.

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.

 

 Article Resources


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: athiests; brights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 321-340 next last
To: malakhi
Do you really want me to take apart your entire post, and expose it for the emotion-driven, hateful spew that it is?

How can I be wrong? Is there a right and wrong?

81 posted on 09/29/2003 8:44:32 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
"The missing distinction is in the "-ist" which denotes advocacy or commitment. In a discourse about beliefs, atheist could mean what you say. But in a general context, I think one would no more define himself as an "atheist" than as an a-child-ist - a person without children."

Not at all. All of the atheists I know refer to themselves simply as atheists. This "bright" nonsense is just that.
82 posted on 09/29/2003 8:44:48 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: The Man Upstairs
Now that's funny...
83 posted on 09/29/2003 8:45:40 AM PDT by L,TOWM (Liberals, The Other White Meat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Typical...

Perhaps. But true.

We could just as easily spend time looking at what religious people have done to promote evil, totalitarian systems. Evil men, whether self-proclaimed "religious" or "atheist", do evil things. Your sweeping generalizations about atheists are as false as statements beginning "ALL blacks are ________" or "ALL Jews are ________".

84 posted on 09/29/2003 8:46:25 AM PDT by malakhi (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: L,TOWM
We try to convert you...

I never said I was an atheist.But you do make some valid points. I can understand the anger of frustration one preaching the gospels (or other religous texts) may experience. What I was refering to was the out-and-out anger (read:hatred) that one may experience just in proclaiming his atheism (you don't need to scroll to far up in this thread to see at least one example).

Your "moneychangers" example is also a valid example of anger.Any assault on a person's religion would produce understandable anger.

85 posted on 09/29/2003 8:47:34 AM PDT by PaulJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
How can I be wrong? Is there a right and wrong?

The God that YOU claim to follow, tells you that your actions in this thread are wrong.

So either your God is right, and your actions are wrong.

Or you choose to ignore your God, and act like a petulant and defiant child in spite of his instructions. (which is also wrong).

86 posted on 09/29/2003 8:48:50 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: L,TOWM
...but many others also act better than many other others that claim Him. This was also mentioned by Christ directly "...begone from me you workers of iniquity."

Mentioned "directly"? I don't recall in the bible where Jesus said this. Post the verse.

87 posted on 09/29/2003 8:49:20 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
How can I be wrong? Is there a right and wrong?

If you had actually read my posts on this thread, you would have seen that I referred to myself as a theist. I believe in God. And as a believer in God, I find your posts and the attitude they convey to be repulsive. You represent "our side" poorly, and that's why I called you out.

88 posted on 09/29/2003 8:49:32 AM PDT by malakhi (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

Comment #89 Removed by Moderator

To: DittoJed2
Thing the evo's on this forum would go for changing the term "crevo thread" to "brightcreationist threads" ?
90 posted on 09/29/2003 8:50:15 AM PDT by HalfFull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windsong
And you are probably the most idiotic pothead on FR. Lots of us know it.

Many claim knowledge.

Few can demonstrate it.

91 posted on 09/29/2003 8:51:14 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: OWK
I sincerely hope that you find something that gives you peace in your life. Clearly you are an angry and bitter man.

Careful now, or he will revert to type and threaten to track you down and beat you up.

92 posted on 09/29/2003 8:51:15 AM PDT by balrog666 (As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Luke 13:27.
93 posted on 09/29/2003 8:51:18 AM PDT by malakhi (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
You may also wish to consider Matthew 7:16-23.
94 posted on 09/29/2003 8:52:32 AM PDT by malakhi (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Careful now, or he will revert to type and threaten to track you down and beat you up.

Fear not... I consider defense a personal responsibility.

95 posted on 09/29/2003 8:52:33 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: OWK
The God that YOU claim to follow, tells you that your actions in this thread are wrong.

Really? Elijah mocked the priests of Baal. I merely mock the priests of neodarwinism. Did I say something that was untrue? Is atheism a form of god-hating? Yes. Are all atheists god-haters? No - only those who are actively working against God and trying to destroy His work on this earth. I do not apologize for coming out against the enemies of God - atheists are that. They are the ones who are actively working with the ACLU and other secular-humanists to drive God from the public sphere in America. I expose them for what they are - moral relativists and liars and revisionists - and I can back those accusations up with FACTS. If the shoe fits, wear it.

96 posted on 09/29/2003 8:52:35 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Fantastic. You must have certainly thought "what would Jesus do?" before you typed that response.

Your attempts at guilting me won't work.

Naturally, there's no reason to worry about *my* judgment. But a careful reading of your Bible would reveal to you your repeated sins just on this thread.

97 posted on 09/29/2003 8:53:08 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Blatantly dishonest, as we've come to expect from the advocates of the One True Absolute Moral Code. The Brights encompass anyone with a naturalistic world view, inclusing atheists and agnostics, yet this article does not so much as mention the world agnostic. As a matter of fact, I am a Bright (I signed up after noticing the intense hatred for them manifest in articles such as this). I am not an atheist.
98 posted on 09/29/2003 8:55:13 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
"If there is no God, then everything is permitted"

-- Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Our 'bright' friends have yet to refute this simple truth, after 100 years of great "successes" of atheism that murdered 100 million and enslaved a billion.

99 posted on 09/29/2003 8:56:30 AM PDT by Revolting cat! (Far out, man!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
You're a theist? Want a medal? Is that supposed to impress me? I don't care what your opinion is of my methods. What I stated was true. If it is untrue, then refute it! Forget the tone (as if you can read tone in print), respond to the charge!! If what I said is true, then how can I be wrong? Is telling the truth wrong? I can back up what I said. If you want to defend atheists, be my guest - I'm ready for ya. What sort of "theist" are you anyway? Deists are theists. Some theists act like atheists - like the Rev. Barry Lynn.
100 posted on 09/29/2003 8:59:02 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 321-340 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson