Not Too Bright?

In reference to the furor created by Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennerr in proposing the term Brights in place of atheists (as covered by Chris Mooney's article, "Not Too 'Bright'" in the March/April 2004 issue of SKEPTICAL INQUIRER), I would like to humbly suggest an alternative term: philosophically correct or PhC.

While I agree with Mooney that ideally a campaign of "market research" would be required before deciding on a term, I feel philosophically correct is a natural choice. Following on the heels of politically correct (which in turn was born as an extension of anatomically correct), it would have a familiar ring to it, making it more accessible to "consumers." But unlike politically correct (a term I object to), it can be defended--atheists (ugly word) are "correct" in the sense that they don't want to make conclusions without evidence. Ultimately, the atheist position is that "OK, God may exist, but to adopt that stance without proof is incorrect." So philosophically correct would be perfectly defensible as well as being (fairly) modest, and it would follow on from a familiar predecessor.

How about it?

Adrian Boyle

Tokyo, Japan

It's a shame that the Brights meme was implemented and has failed so miserably. Even as Dawkins explained that the word Bright does not necessarily mean clever or intelligent--it was akin to having to explain the punch line of a joke ... and if you have to explain it .... While reflecting on this tragedy in the days that followed my reading of the word, I awoke from a dream one morning with a word that seemed to capture what Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell were trying to capture. An impetus with the potential to carry the sublime, ephemeral sparks of nature unfolding. Ready? The word is Bloom. The Bloomers or the Blooms for short. Yes, the image of a flower. Natural. Beautiful. Humble. Bad connotations? Could it get any worse?

Perhaps SI could run a contest to see who could come up with a more functional word. Consider this my entry. Thanks and keep up the great writing!

Andrew Viceroy

Portland, Oregon

Chris Mooney's analysis of the current "flap" over the adoption of the noun Bright to identify persons without dogmatic religious beliefs is grossly off point. The mistaken idea that adopting a less confrontational, less easily misconstrued term than Bright will ameliorate the intolerance of narrow-minded religious bigots is myopic. Being meek and talking "nice" to people of this ilk has accomplished nothing.

Look closely at the history of antislavery, female suffrage, segregation, voting rights, reproductive rights, gander equality, and gay rights. Nothing positive was accomplished in any of these venues until the proponents actively, and aggressively, engaged their opponents. The same will be true in this case also.

Just because the religious right is too ignorant to understand what the noun Bright means, and what it does not mean, is simply a reflection on them, not on Brights. Because they insist on being insulted or demeaned by unbelievers using that term says something negative about them, not about the unbelievers.

In short, you will never change the minds of the "true believers," but if you raise enough hell (pun intended) with a good case, you can positively influence all those who are willing to listen.

George Kalis

Brooklyn, Michigan

The considerable discussion about the appropriateness of Bright as a term to replace atheist suggests that the time is ripe to explore another naming issue, and that is our continued, automatic reference to God in the universal sense.

When we write articles about the belief or lack of belief in God, or when we discuss with theists whether God does or does not exist, our position becomes set to the defensive by verbally accepting God as a universal entity that has to be argued away. When you ask a theist to prove that God exists, you are complicit in accepting the concept's generality.

Would it not be better to put the theist on the defensive by verbally challenging their right to automatically extend their personal belief into your domain? Wouldn't it be more to the point to require a theist to prove that their God exists? Wouldn't we then be on a more solid footing to discuss in an article or letter to the editor whether or not a God exists in some believer's personal rather than general universe?

Roll the idea around. Try it out a few times. I always refer to a personal deity in arguments. Believe me, it drives the theist crazy. "What do you mean my God?" they exclaim, and then the game's afoot.

David Werdegar

Naperville, Illinois

COPYRIGHT 2004 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group