Brights

[McCulloch]

This issue about the name "Bright" has been extensively debated (in a very long thread) in our forum. Even many Brights are reluctant to use this term. Nevertheless, many people are registered and consider themselves as covered with the Brights' umbrella.
I can now speak for myself, but with the feeling that my opinion is not very much different from that of many other Brights.

The term is not an adjective, it is a noun. Being a noun, I see two major considerations on it:

- it is true, as you said, that many have no idea about the meaning, but this is true also for any other category name. I claim I am an Agnostic, but I have discovered that there are disagreements on what this really means. Even my own parents have no idea! Semantics is not a trivial problem when categorising people. In addition, I am not of english mother language...

- being a name, it is a nonsense to define the negation of it. The negation of "bright" (as adjective, attribute, for a non-discrete quality) is dim, obscure, dark, etc. , I agree. In the same way as the opposite of "high" is "low", yes, but how would you define the opposite of Italian, Inuit, Muslim, Cheyenne, Christian?

One reason I prefer the term Humanist. Unlike "Bright" it has no meaning as an adjective and invites no negation of it.

In addition, I can see that the philosophy behind that choice was, and is, very interesting and much deeper as it might seem.
For centuries, and still today, non-Believers have been categorised with some sort of "negative" word. There are A-theists, A-gnostics, Non-Believers, etc. The positive feature always lying in the religious term, the rest was always negative.
A sort of prejudice.

Humanist is a positive term unlike a-gnostic or a-theist.

Why not using then a "positive" name as "Bright"? Look at the best similar example: time ago some people decided to call themselves "Gays". I think this was almost for the same reason. Gays were always labelled by prejudices in a negative way. Now they correctly pretend to be called with a proper name, that must avoid negative feelings or prejudices.

I do believe that Gay has a different history. Homosexuals were called gay before the homosexual movement adopted and accepted the term. Sort of a defiant attitude. "You are going to call us 'gay'. Well we are gay and proud of it." attitude.

Please feel free to move this in a new thread, if you wish.

And so I have. This is primarily a discussion for the atheists and agnostics, so I have started the thread in the A Room.

[ST88]

I, too, prefer the term "Humanism", but I think this word has some unpleasant affiliations with screechingly dull undergraduate philosophy courses and texts.

I must admit, the "Brights" set-up is very attractive -- it describes very well how I think about and view the world. Plus it's free! I don't know what it actually means, but it's appealing in its own way.

I also dislike the use of the word bright, coined by some guy in Sacramento. I understand the need to find a term that is not just a reactionary adjective to theists, but I dislike the one they came up with. I think it might be hampering recruitment, though I am hard-pressed to come up with an alternative, myself.

[vacantcardboardbox]

It doesn't really matter if we're labeled with a different ism, or completely new word. We only create these labels, because everyone thinks their opinion/idea is so goddamn distinctive and important.

P.S. Since I don't let my ideas define who I am (I try to define my ideas), I have no problem with the word atheist.

[Alien]

In my understanding, the term "Humanism" does not necessarily include any considerations and analysis about Theism and Religion.

Humanism on one side, and Atheism/Agnosticism on the other, are not mutually exclusive but focus the attention on different areas.

One can be a Humanist when dealing with social or political problems. One can be an Atheist/Agnostic when dealing with teological problems.
Humanism is a very general term, but in my understanding does not explicitely address the teological issues. There is a sort of compatibility, probably partial, between religion and humanism. From this it follows that potentially there is the possibility that two Humanists have different opinions about Theology.

To my view, a way to avoid this possible overlap between Humanism and Religion, is talking about Natural and Supernatural. In this way, if you have a naturalistic worldview, and you refuse what is supernatural, then you are a Bright.
There might be Humanists who accept Supernatural, but no Bright accepts Supernatural. There might even be laymen who accept Supernatural. The term Bright can therefore cover Humanists who have a Naturalistic worldview. And the other advantage is that Atheists and Agnostics are also covered. I personally can be a Humanist in many instances, I am surely a layman, but due to my attitude against Supernatural, I surely am a Bright.

On the other side, Atheists and Agnostics can debate because they have different perspectives on Theism, but they are both Brights.

In two words, I personally find this umbrella as a sort of very good "optimisation".

In a single term "Bright" I can find an umbrella that covers many views that are slightly different but with very much in common. Simultaneously, the definition of this single term is very simple: Natural against Supernatural.

The ratio between the wide spectrum of covered opinions and the simplicity of definition is very high, and therefore optimised.

[Bugmaster]

When I hear the word "Bright", I can't help but think of some sort of psionic cult, a la Children of the Corn. "We are the briiiights... you cannot resist our will... JOIN USSSSSS." Creepy.

I'm an atheist, not a Bright, thank you very much.

[The Happy Humanist]

In my understanding, the term "Humanism" does not necessarily include any considerations and analysis about Theism and Religion.

The term "secular humanism," which is what is nearly universally meant by "humanism" nowadays, does indeed include Theological considerations. It happens to have rejected positive theologies and moved on to more important questions.

[Alien]

When I hear the word "Bright", I can't help but think of some sort of psionic cult, a la Children of the Corn. "We are the briiiights... you cannot resist our will... JOIN USSSSSS." Creepy.

I'm an atheist, not a Bright, thank you very much.

I am convinced that what is important in the name of a category is the objective meaning that the word claims to comprehend. At least, this is certainly much more important than any subjective impression that the word might inspire.

An emotional feeling like this one is of course perfectly legitimate, but out of place. Or, better, I think it is not an argument. Perhaps I have the big advantage of not being of english mother tongue, and therefore I cannot shear the same feelings about the term "Brights".

Nevertheless, if a different term, whatever, like "Gzeqna" or "J302", were used to designate people with a naturalistic worldview, then I would have immediately joined the Gzeqna or the J302 Association.

Let me conclude in other words:

I agree that potentially a large group of people can be defined under a unique umbrella, just because they share a naturalistic worldview.
I agree that this group of people can therefore comprehend several different attitudes with a very strong common point.
I agree that this people should be given more attention by the political world, because religion has unacceptable influences on civil rights.
I then decide to join this group independent on any name or acronym can be used as a title.

I also bet that many of you would in principle agree with my points above. That's almost all I can say about: not a lot quantitatively, but a lot qualitatively, IMHO.

[Bugmaster]

I am convinced that what is important in the name of a category is the objective meaning that the word claims to comprehend.

That's true, of course, but I thought that the whole point of the Brights was to give atheism a better name; sort of like what gays did when they started calling themselves queers (er... or was it the other way around ?). Anyway, if one of the goals of the Bright movement was to create a better label for atheists, then IMO it has failed to achieve this goal.