Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Oldie but goodie: “Darwin’s bright idea”




Dave Scott

That seems like a fairly sweeping generalization for which, I suspect, there is little evidence. It would appear that you are linking all brights with leftist tree huggers and other similar groups. This is of course not true. In truth one could be an IDist and still be a bright. If you check their site a bright is anyone who's worldview is free of supernatural interference. Atheists, agnostics, deists, and others fit under this banner. On its face this would appear to presuppose a strictly material view of the universe, but it does not. It is a rejection of the common cultural concepts of things like superstitions, miracles, angels interceding in our lives, and the like. Agnostics, for instance, can say that there may well be an intelligent power at work in the universe, but at the same time disregard the traditional cultural concepts of the supernatural as creations of the human psyche with no verifiable basis in reality.

At any rate, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and others were the "brights" of their day. I am sure that there are plenty of successful people today who hold "bright" compatible views. It can be a dangerous thing to admit to such views however since such people are in the minority and not recieved well in some circles.

You're equivocating. A bright is someone with a positive disbelief in God. Quoth Dennett: 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. -ds ftrp11

??? "supernatural" is the obvious term.

This is going to be fun. I can just imagine the ghetto-speak -- "yeah, that's bright" or "whoa, he's a bright" -- said with a derogatory tone.

The reason "gay" was able to be transformed was that it was a quaint, almost archaic word that was going out of common usage, so there was nothing to anchor its mainstream definition anymore.

On the other hand, this attempt is destined to fail, because the baggage just isn't there for the term "bright" or its intended connotations. Mainstream folks can simply continue to use the word "bright" and even co-opt the noun to apply to intelligent people and spiritual luminaries.

And if by some chance this attempt at redefinition succeeds, I predict that all the baggage of the terms "Mensa", "nerd", and "geek" will land on the word "bright". Now there's a winning choice, self-identification as spritually-idiot savants.

In the meantime, I just learned a new noun to assign to all my brilliant buddies, who just happen to be theists. "This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine...." (Yep, the BFLAG folks tried to coopt that song too, but failed. Chalk it up to the Cedarmont Kids.)

"supernatural" is the obvious term Not at work. Then the obvious term is "boss" or "sir". Brights don't tend to rise to positions of authority (academic institutions excepted). They aren't that kind of bright. -ds Gandalf

The actual term that "brights" use for religious people is "super(s)"

Undoubtedly a contraction of "supervisor(s)". -ds ftrp11
From the article: "Oh, I get it. It's a bit like 'gay'. So, what's the opposite of a bright? What would you call a religious person?" "What would you suggest?" A 'brilliant'. David Bergan
Dawkins is not a bright; he's a dull. This is why he won't debate people like Behe, Berlinski, or Dembski. Dawkins has no expertise in, virtually no familiarity with, and no talent for, any technically demanding subject like biochemistry, mathematics, or computer programming. He has demonstrated this repeatedly in his writings. GilDodgen

I don't have anything against atheists. If they want to call themselves "brights", that's fine with me. I only get pissed off when they start attacking religious theism and its believers and claiming that their atheism isn't a faith but a fact.

"I am the light of the world; anyone who follows me will not be walking in the dark but will have the light of life." John 8:13 "You are the light of the world. A city built upon a hilltop cannot be hidden. No one lights a lamp to put it under a tub; they put it on a lamp-stand where it shines for everyone in the house. In the same way your light must shine in people's sight, so that, seeing your good works, they may give praise to your Father in heaven." Matt 5:14-16 j
Orwell wrote about this use of language in his disturbing novel "1984". He called it "doublespeak". Come to think of it, aren't they "The Thought Police" who are mostly trying to stamp out any mention of ID in the public square? "Political correctness" it is called. Hmmmm. Did Orwell know his own disciples would be the ones working to make his fears come true? GlennJ - Houston
The importants of words and sound-bytes needs to not be overlooked. Why are IDists so regularly referred to as ID creationists? As we in the ID community predominantly have some sort of a common descent view of nature, I think that we should be clearly pronouncing that we are ID evolutionists. bFast
Oh, the irony! There can be no "bright"without the Light! "This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." 1 John 1:5 kathy
I am often accused of not having a sense of humor because to me most humor is not really that funny, but DaveScot's little bit of verse here, that was funny... carbon14atom
Atheist Side Story by Richard Dawkins I feel pretty Oh so pretty I feel pretty and witty and bright And I pity Any girl who isn't me tonight DaveScot
Oh boy... Yanno, I would think this was funny except that it isn't, what ol' dawkins says about the power of words it true. It seems pathetic to me, because I am seeing the start of it, but 5, 10, 20, 30 years down the line?? carbon14atom

Leave a Reply