Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Meanwhile: Brights Of The World, Stand And Be Counted (Atheists, Godless To March On Washington)
International Herald Tribune ^ | 7/15/03 | Daniel C. Dennett

Posted on 07/24/2003 4:45:25 PM PDT by Libloather

Meanwhile: Brights of the world, stand and be counted
Daniel C. Dennett NYT
Tuesday, July 15, 2003

BLUE HILL, Maine The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. 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.

The term "bright" is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, California, who thought our social group could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help.

You may well be a bright. If not, you certainly deal with brights daily. That's because we are all around you: We're doctors, nurses, police officers, schoolteachers, crossing guards and men and women serving in the military. We are, in fact, the moral backbone of the nation: Brights take their civic duties seriously precisely because they don't trust God to save humanity from its follies.

As an adult white married male with financial security, I am not in the habit of considering myself a member of any minority in need of protection. But now I'm beginning to feel some heat, and , I've come to realize it's time to sound the alarm.

Whether we brights are a minority or, as I am inclined to believe, a silent majority, our deepest convictions are increasingly dismissed, belittled and condemned by those in power - by politicians who go out of their way to invoke God and to stand, self-righteously preening, on what they call "the side of the angels."

A 2002 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life suggests that 27 million Americans are atheist or agnostic or have no religious preference. That figure may well be too low, since many nonbelievers are reluctant to admit that their religious observance is more a civic or social duty than a religious one - more a matter of protective coloration than conviction.

Most brights don't play the "aggressive atheist" role. The price is political impotence. Politicians don't think they even have to pay us lip service, and leaders who wouldn't be caught dead making ethnic slurs don't hesitate to disparage the "godless" among us.

The assault isn't only rhetorical: The Bush administration has advocated changes in government policies to increase the role of religious organizations, a serious subversion of the Constitution. It is time to halt this erosion and to take a stand: The United States is not a religious state, it is a secular state that tolerates all religions and - yes - all manner of nonreligious ethical beliefs as well. I recently took part in a conference in Seattle that brought together leading scientists, artists and authors to talk about their lives to a group of high school students. Toward the end of my allotted 15 minutes, I tried a little experiment. I came out as a bright.

The result was electrifying. Many students came up to me afterwards to thank me for "liberating" them. They'd never heard a respected adult say, in an entirely matter of fact way, that he didn't believe in God. I had broken a taboo and shown how easy it was.

If you're a bright, what can you do? First, we can be a powerful force in American political life if we simply identify ourselves.

I appreciate that while coming out of the closet was easy for an academic like me - or for my colleague Richard Dawkins, who has issued a similar call in England - in some parts of the country admitting you're a bright could lead to social calamity.

But there's no reason all Americans can't support bright rights. Whatever your theology, you can firmly object when you hear family or friends sneer at atheists or agnostics or other godless folk.

And you can ask your political candidates these questions: Would you vote for an otherwise qualified candidate for public office who was a bright? Do you think brights should be allowed to be high school teachers? Or chiefs of police?

With any luck, we'll soon hear some squirming politician trying to get off the hot seat with the feeble comment that "some of my best friends are brights."

The writer, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, is author, most recently, of "Freedom Evolves."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: brights; catholiclist; counted; godless; march; stand; washingtonatheists; world
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: Physicist
Dude, thanks for responding - after posting, I'd assumed you would think I was baiting you.

...I believe in a God great enough to create the universe so that it is exactly perfect for His unknowable purpose.

Why do you believe that? I've read enough books for laymen (and your posts) that claim quantum physics and "initial conditions" can create existence.

Again - I'm not trying to contradict you, nor am I asking rhetorical questions in the form of statements.

Here's my real question - why are there conditions and/or Physics? There should be nothing - and I'm asking as a non-believer.

41 posted on 07/24/2003 7:59:50 PM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: xzins
That makes it a religion.

Nonbelief = belief.
I see your integrity is still in the service
of the gymnasty de jour.
42 posted on 07/24/2003 8:17:31 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
Well, now you're asking Wittgenstein's "fundamental question of philosophy": why is there something, and not just nothing? I simply don't know. I think Rand had the right approach when she made "Existence exists" and axiom, and had done with it.
43 posted on 07/24/2003 8:25:02 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Like many of the Founding Fathers, I believe that God exists, but that He does not interfere in the universe. Unlike most people, I believe in a God great enough to create the universe so that it is exactly perfect for His unknowable purpose. A less capable deity might have to tweak it now and again; a really inept supreme being would continually have to steer things about by hand.

You are measuring God's power and understanding according to your own human limitations. Therefore, you know that if God were to intercede it would cause the same sort insept results that would result if you were God and you were to interecede.

It's a good thing that God isn't bound by your shortsightedness and limitations.

44 posted on 07/24/2003 8:28:37 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
But why a Deist and not Atheist?
45 posted on 07/24/2003 8:56:53 PM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: WVNan
Do you ever watch Discovery Health Channel? Anyone who watches 'The Golden Hour' or Paramedics or one of those shows and just stops to think for three seconds about the beauty and complexity of the human body has to acknowledge intelligent design in some form.
46 posted on 07/24/2003 8:59:00 PM PDT by ModernDayCato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Not my argument, m'man.

Atheism is considered a religion by the courts. Non-belief of ultimate things is considered a religious faith....a belief.

"God is not there" is a statement of faith as surely as is the statement "God is There."

Good to meet again anyway. I'm surprised our paths haven't crossed these past 5 years.

47 posted on 07/24/2003 9:39:07 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Most brights don't play the "aggressive atheist" role.

Calling yourself a "bright" implies that religious people are "dim;" it is therefore by definition an obnoxious way to present oneself. This lady might not be an "aggressive atheist," but she's at least a "passive-aggressive atheist." And that's even worse, because that s--- is just TEDIOUS. Condescension is BORING. If you're going to be wrong, at least do it with a little flair! But stupid, condescending, boring, and obnoxious--that's not a cocktail I want to imbibe.

The sad thing is, the greatest form of interaction most religious people have with atheists is through the liberal media, and media types don't even bother to hide their condescension. We'd do a lot better with recruiting if atheism wasn't marketed as a snobs club.

48 posted on 07/24/2003 9:52:43 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
These "brights" (aka snobbish left-wing atheists, not to be confused with the majority of us) think upholding "civic duties" is synonymous with voting for higher taxes. As far as being the "moral backbone," I wonder where most of these "brights" stood on the issue of taking out a tyrant dictator in Iraq and stopping his reign of murder, torture, rape, secret police, show trials, murder, torture, rape, mass murder, political torture, torturing kids to punish parents, raping women Uday grabbed right off the street, torturing them, filling mass graves, filling mass graves with children, torture, murder, etc. etc.

No, no, no. They say they are the "moral backbone" of this country because they want to keep abortion legal. Feh.

49 posted on 07/24/2003 9:58:44 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Brats.
50 posted on 07/24/2003 10:02:27 PM PDT by Charles Henrickson (God laughs at their "brightness.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
How can they be "the moral backbone"? If there is no God, how can there be any standard of morality? Then it's just "your morality" versus "my morality." And who's to say who's right?
51 posted on 07/24/2003 10:04:40 PM PDT by Charles Henrickson (They're not too bright.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Libloather; WKB
We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny - or God.

It's gonna be REAL bright - where they end up!

52 posted on 07/24/2003 10:08:16 PM PDT by potlatch (If you want breakfast in bed - - - sleep in the kitchen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson
If there is no God, how can there be any standard of morality?

Morality exists independent of God.

Don't believe me?

If Jesus came back to Earth on the day the OJ verdict was read, and said "Orenthal is my best pal. Them bitches had it coming," would that make OJ innocent? Would it make him a good person?

Right and wrong were not given to us by a deity and they are not subject to the whims of any being, human or supernatural.

53 posted on 07/24/2003 10:11:52 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Right and wrong were not given to us by a deity and they are not subject to the whims of any being, human or supernatural.

How do you know that?

And what if someone has different ideas about what's right and wrong than you do?

54 posted on 07/24/2003 10:17:18 PM PDT by Charles Henrickson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson
How do you know that?

I just explained it in my post. If Jesus came down to Earth tomorrow, and made some morally atrocious statement, would that make it right? If Jesus said "rape and kill, do whatever you want, it's all cool, so long as you enjoy yourself" would you start raping and killing? I think not. If he said "Segregation is good, I don't like those dark-skinned people" would that make racism holy? If Jesus opened his own abortion clinic, would that make infanticide a sacrament? Of course not!

And what if someone has different ideas about what's right and wrong than you do?

Nobody (at least nobody I know of) has a perfect view of the world. Nobody has direct access to the truth. We make do with the best we can. If someone disagrees with me about an issue, there are some things to take into account: are they mentally sharp, are they philosophizing in good will, and are they looking at the same information as I am? Those are all worth taking into account, so we can try to work things out. But we never will all agree on all the issues, that's okay. We don't have direct access to morality, we don't know for certain exactly what is right or wrong, but we can do a pretty good job of figuring it out if we try.

55 posted on 07/24/2003 11:13:23 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Pascal oversimplified the given.
56 posted on 07/25/2003 2:02:52 AM PDT by King Prout (people hear and do not listen, see and do not observe, speak without thought, post and not edit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson
the traditional manner: by right of might.
57 posted on 07/25/2003 2:03:43 AM PDT by King Prout (people hear and do not listen, see and do not observe, speak without thought, post and not edit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
I'm with Charles on this one.
58 posted on 07/25/2003 2:05:08 AM PDT by King Prout (people hear and do not listen, see and do not observe, speak without thought, post and not edit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
Okay. Can you explain how my examples are wrong?
59 posted on 07/25/2003 2:14:23 AM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
they are wrong through targeted specificity.
You asked a Christian, who has the usual beliefs about what Jesus would say or do, a set of very silly questions.
I'll return the favor:
Would a Mongul say that rape and pillage was wrong?
Would a Roman say that slavery was wrong?
Would a Muslim say that murdering non-combatant infidels in a surprise attack is wrong?

Morality is so far from universal across cultures, so far from durable across time, that one simply cannot assert that there is a "natural" or "intrinsic" moral code.
60 posted on 07/25/2003 2:24:23 AM PDT by King Prout (people hear and do not listen, see and do not observe, speak without thought, post and not edit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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