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.
|
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
The last phrase is translated in the KJV as being "workers of iniquity".
Take care for the fruit you are bearing, brother. You may want to brush on The Sermon on the Mount. It includes many fundamental teachings of Christ.
Elijah was beholden to the old Covenant. Are you?
Exactly. Insecurity, fear, and intellectual laziness.
The atheists I refer to are the ANTI-THEISTIC ones (not the ones who don't give a flip). I'm talking about the ones (like you?) who are trying to ERASE America's Christian heritage, who do everything they can to oppose Christians and God, who are the enemies of religious freedom. Does the shoe fit?
By the way, atheists who believe in an objective morality are seriously confused. Pssst...Let me give you a clue - morals have only TWO POSSIBLE SOURCES - man or God. There are no other possibilities. If you think there is, then you need to name a 3rd source...
You are a jew? I have nothing against Jews - I am among the staunchest supporters of Israel, and Jesus Christ himself was a jew. But I do take exception with the ADL and other anti-Christian BIGOTS who are villifying Mel Gibson and are constantly attacking Christians. Are you one of those?
Not really worth the effort.
Remarkably telling insight, into the mind of exmarine.
Then perhaps you should qualify your remarks when you make them.
I'm talking about the ones (like you?)
Having already said that I believe in God, that I am not a moral relativist and that I am a Jew, should have been sufficient to dispel any doubt on the matter.
By the way, atheists who believe in an objective morality are seriously confused.
Maybe they are confused, maybe they aren't. But that doesn't mean that they don't believe in an objective morality.
But I do take exception with the ADL and other anti-Christian BIGOTS who are villifying Mel Gibson and are constantly attacking Christians. Are you one of those?
I have no use for the ADL. I also have little use for Mel Gibson. I do not attack Christians qua Christians. My belief system does not require others to believe as I do.
How intelligent! How witty! How original! What a departure from the usual cliche that would say "perhaps -- more likely -- I'm a presumptious twit." What a sophisticated intellectual refutation of Dostoyevsky's statement, and of the widely accepted version of the causes of the 20th century horrors. We might as well surrender to the moral code of the atheists. But which ones? Oh, I'll take Woody Allen's atheistic standards.
"If there is no God, then everything is permitted" -- Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I am certain you are well aware of the numerous "time, place, manner & what-was-said" contradictions contained within.
Or maybe not -- judging by the number of times you have sinned on this thread.
What does not follow from this is that everyone would choose to do evil.
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.