Brights

A few months ago Dawkins has endorsed an effort to popularize the word "bright" to mean something like naturalist / atheist, to counter discrimination against people like that.Despite the apparently large amount of attention that has been given to formulating the definition of "bright" it seems to me somewhat problematical. I think to base ethics and actions on a worldview is defacto extremist religion, no matter if any supernatural entitities are part of the worldview or not. People should base their actions on well, the relationships they already have with other people etc. For a bright the action of getting up in the morning is based on a naturalisic worldview?The future looks bright | Books | The Guardian"Geisert and Futrell are very insistent that their word is a noun and must not be an adjective. "I am bright" sounds arrogant. "I am a bright" sounds too unfamiliar to be arrogant: it is puzzling, enigmatic, tantalising. It invites the question, "What on earth is a bright?" And then you're away: "A bright is a person whose world view is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic world view."further info at:
The Brights' Net - Who are The Brights?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I have to say the term makes me cringe everytime I hear it. I heard a suggestion somewhere they should have chosen 'Smug', as in 'I am a Smug' - now there's a suggestion I could get on board with.Bright is not, however, a religion. Religions make supernatural statements, and dogmatic assertions. Brights do neither.

Thread moved here from the Faith and Belief forum.

What are your relationships with other people if they do not form part of your worldview?

quote:

---

I think to base ethics and actions on a worldview is defacto extremist religion, no matter if any supernatural entitities are part of the worldview or not. People should base their actions on well, the relationships they already have with other people etc. For a bright the action of getting up in the morning is based on a naturalisic worldview?

---

Now you're quibbling, for no apparent reason, with a totally reasonable statement. Excuse me while I resort to one of your favorite tactics and argue from definition:To me, worldview has always meant the sum total of my beliefs about life as I know it. Therefore, to say that my ethics and actions are based on my worldview is beyond obvious - it's practically tautological. If my worldview did not color every aspect of my thinking and acting, IT WOULDN'T BE A WORLDVIEW! It's not something you can step outside of, because trying to take a step back from your own feelings or knowledge would simply be another part of your worldview!So when someone says "a person of association X does Y because their worldview is Z," the only functional, useful part of that sentence is "their worldview is Z." The rest is just poetry.

Of course it depends on how you understand worldview, and I understand it differently then you, and I would guess that my understanding is more in line with common understanding. I think you can step outside your worldview, entertain opposing worldviews at the same time, and vary the amount of influence you let any particular worldview influence your actions. Anyway it strikes me as odd to get up in the morning based on a worldview unless your intention for the day is to for instance evangelize that worldview. Especially for a naturalist / atheist / rationalist / bright, this seems odd to me, because it seems very religious.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I shall now resort to that sub-standard standard of high school debating.The American Heritage Dictionary defines a 'Worldview' as Clearly Syamsu means the 2nd case and I was certainly thinking of the 1st case. Do you have any reason, Syamsu, to suppose that your thinking is more in line with the meaning in the original quote? Leaving aside the question if the man on the street would agree with your definition.

To get up in the morning based on an overall perspective of the world sounds odd to me also...regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Brights is a political movement that wants to get rid of superstition in politics so that non-religious people have a voice. Do you wake up in the morning because of politics?Now lets talk about other things it means. It means that Brights are people who do not believe in God, and the supernatural. Lots of us think these things ruin many aspects of life. What does getting up in the morning have anything to do with it anway? The analogy doesn't even make sense.[This message has been edited by Intellect, 11-14-2003]