Everything about The Brights Movement totally explained
The
Brights movement is a social movement that aims to promote public understanding and acknowledgment of the
naturalistic world view. It was co-founded by Paul Geisert and
Mynga Futrell in 2003. The noun 'bright' was coined by Geisert as a positive-sounding
umbrella term, and Futrell defined it as "an individual whose worldview is naturalistic (free from supernatural and mystical elements)".
This created the basis for a civic constituency to pursue the movement's three major aims:
- Promote public understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
- Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
- Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such people.
The brights movement has been formed as an
Internet constituency of individuals. Its hub is The Brights' Net web site, but each individual has autonomy to speak for him/herself. The Brights' Net's tagline is now: "Illuminating and Elevating the Naturalistic Worldview".
History
Paul Geisert was a biology teacher in Chicago in the 1960s, a
professor in the 1970s, an entrepreneur and writer in the 1980s, and the co-developer of learning materials and a web site regarding teaching about religion in public schools in the 1990s.
(External Link
)
In deciding to attend the "
Godless Americans March on Washington" in 2002, Paul disliked the label "godless" and resolved to identify a better term to unite the "community of reason". He sought a new, positive word that might become well-accepted, in the same way that the term "gay" has come to mean "homosexual". In late 2002, Paul coined the noun "bright", but didn't announce it immediately.
Working with Mynga Futrell, the co-founders of the brights movement wanted to connect and galvanize the many individuals who were non-religious, but who were not associated with the many philosophical organisations already in existence. To achieve this they created not only the definition of "a bright", but also the idea of a civic constituency that would coalesce through the Internet.
Having tested this idea during the early months of 2003, they launched the Brights Net website on
June 4,
2003. The movement gained early publicity through articles by
Richard Dawkins in
The Guardian and
Wired, and by
Daniel Dennett in the
New York Times.. Within a year, registered Brights numbered in five figures and spanned 85 nations.
The movement has continued to grow and experienced accelerated registrations following media debate around "new atheism" prompted by a series of book releases in late 2006 including
The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell, God isn't Great,
The End of Faith and
Letter to a Christian Nation. As of March 2008 over 38,000 Brights have registered from 148 nations.
The Brights' Net
The Brights' Net web site serves as the hub of communication and action projects in the Brights movement. If an individual self-identifies as a bright and supports the Brights' Net aims and principles, he or she can register and thereby enter the constituency, becoming a Bright (with a capital 'B').
The Brights' Net recommends project priorities and facilitates the formation of local groups, known as Brights' Local Constituencies (BLCs). There are BLCs in
London,
Paris, several cities in the
United States and
Canada, and various other locations worldwide.
(External Link)
However, Brights act autonomously in doing their part for the furtherance of the brights movement. No person or entity, including The Brights' Net Co-directors, can speak for all Brights.
Brights
Within the definition of
bright,
However, "the broader intent is inclusive of the many-varied persons whose worldview is naturalistic" but are in the "general population", as opposed to associating solely with the "community of reason". So persons who can declare their naturalistic worldview using the term
bright extend beyond the familiar
secularist categories. Registrations even include some members of the clergy, such as
Presbyterian ministers and a Church History Professor and ordained priest.
Dawkins' analogy in the aforementioned
Guardian article is instructive, comparing the coining of
bright to the "triumph of consciousness-raising" from the term
gay.
Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, faggot and pooftah are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us whose view of the universe is natural rather than supernatural; 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". ... Like gay, it should be a noun hijacked from an adjective, with its original meaning changed but not too much. Like gay, it should be catchy: a potentially prolific meme. Like gay, it should be positive, warm, cheerful, bright.
Despite the explicit difference between the noun and adjective, there have been comments on the comparison. In his
Wired article Dawkins states, "Whether there's a statistical tendency for brights [noun] to be bright [adjective] is a matter for research."
Daniel Dennett, in his book
Breaking the Spell, suggests that if non-naturalists are concerned with this connotation of the word
bright, then they should invent an equally positive sounding word for themselves, like
supers (for example, one whose worldview contains supernaturalism). Geisert and Futrell maintain that the neologism has always had a kinship with the Enlightenment, a movement which celebrated science, free inquiry, and a spirit of skepticism; they've endorsed the use of
super as the antonym to
bright.
Notable brights include biologists
Richard Dawkins and
Richard J. Roberts, cognitive scientist
Steven Pinker, philosopher
Daniel Dennett, and stage magicians and
debunkers
James Randi,
Penn Jillette, and
Teller. Other brights include
Amy Alkon,
Sheldon Lee Glashow,
Babu Gogineni,
Edwin Kagin,
Mel Lipman,
Air America Radio talk show host
Lionel and
Massimo Pigliucci.
Criticism of the title
The movement has been criticised by some (both religious and non-religious) who have objected to the adoption of the title "bright" because they believe it suggests that the individuals with a naturalistic
worldview are more intelligent ("brighter") than the
religious. For example, the
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry published an article by
Chris Mooney titled "Not Too 'Bright'" in which he stated that, although he agreed with the movement,
Richard Dawkins' and
Daniel Dennett's "campaign to rename religious unbelievers 'brights' could use some rethinking" because of the possibility that the term would be misinterpreted. The journalist and noted atheist
Christopher Hitchens likewise found it a "cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called 'brights.'"
Similarly,
Michael Shermer, who is an Enthusiastic Bright, has nevertheless resisted using the term to describe himself, saying, "I don't call myself a Bright.”
In response to this
Daniel Dennett has stated in his book
Breaking the Spell:
There was also a negative response, largely objecting to the term that had been chosen [notby me]: bright, which seemed to imply that others were dim or stupid. But the term, modeled on the highly successful hijacking of the ordinary word "gay" by homosexuals, doesn't have to have that implication. Those who are not gays are not necessarily glum; they're straight. Those who are not brights are not necessarily dim.
Dennett later posed the idea during his presentation at the Atheist Alliance International '07 convention that "super" may serve well as a positive title for those who believe in the supernatural.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Brights Movement'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://brights_movement.totallyexplained.com">Brights movement Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
