Dean, well reasoned and thoughtful explanation of your religious beliefs.

I still have trouble with the word "bright" though ... I just think that it's hard to deny that the term was coined with the full knowledged that it's connotation was: "Smart, too smart to believe in God." And if you say you're too smart to believe in God, what are you saying about those who do believe. Isn't there only one corollary opposite? And wouldn't that opposite be dumb? If you're not "bright," what are you? "Not Bright"? And isn't that just another way of saying dumb?

I find the coinage of the term annoying and endemic of the arrogance many atheists and agnostics affect.

Well, this would be an awfully good opportunity to simultaneously acknowledge the legitimacy of their worldview and confront them on the arrogance some of them display, wouldn't it?

You won't be a bright for long. I need to strike up a dialogue with Rosemary.

Dean, I find Kepple's take on Dennett's article dead-on -- shining smugness appears to be Mr. Dennett's brightest characteristic. Although you've embraced the bright label out of good intentions, I think Dawkins' bright meme is an attempt to create a false societal clique to divide rationalists from romantics.

Among my friends in college I find a large variety of faiths and non-faiths, but all of them share a degree of open-mindedness that is sorely missing from the likes of Dennett and Dawkins. You reflect this open-mindedness as well. In your brief discussion of believers you admire you named thinkers who are known to be ecumenical (Lewis) and politicians who are positive rather than scolding (Bush). When explaining why you defend the bright concept you again talk about the need for a more thoughtful dialogue. All this I respect and agree with, but I do not think this is the reason Dawkins authored the bright meme.

Dawkins (and apparently Dennett, at least in this article) is smug and arrogant about religion and the superiority of science. To quote Dawkins: "The merest glance through a microscope at the brain of an ant or through a telescope at a long-ago galaxy of a billion worlds is enough to render poky and parochial the very psalms of praise." This is not a man in search of a dialogue -- he very much wants to elevate his "brights" above others. And undoubtedly, he would not accuse "bright" parents who raise "bright" children of practicing "mental child abuse" the way he does believers.

I believe that the purpose of the bright meme is to prevent the romantic/rationalist dialogue by imposing ideological barriers between people (the built-in "superiority" implicit in the term bright is one such barrier, but I'm sure others will arise). Rather than embracing a new label to distinguish one's self from believers, a person who desires a dialogue between the two groups should instead identify and criticize the chief obstacles to that dialogue, which are the condescending ideologues -- dare I call them the "condescenti"? -- like Dawkins and Pat Robertson, who have disproportionate influence in crafting the sociocultural milieu.

A wonderful post. Thank you.

Well Matthew, I would agree that Dawkins can be insufferably condescending. But I don't see so much of that from Professor Dennett. As I say: I suspect that this is as much an opportunity for a dialog among brights as it is anywhere else.

For if secular humanists and "freethinkers" and self-righteous atheists suddenly find in the midsts a lot of their fellow skeptics who simply don't share any of their assumptions about the evils of religion, perhaps they, too, will have to start questioning their own prejudices.

Questioning prejudices is always a good idea in my book.

Dean,

Good post. Two questions, though:

1. I'm still just a bit sleepy and only spent a couple minutes with the secular humanist manifesto you linked. What about it do you disagree with? It seems in accord with the ideas you expressed in the post.

2. Dennett says, "What is a bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. . . ." The Brights website (which I find contradictory, since it says in the space of a couple inches that to be a Bright you must call yourself that--and that you don't have to call yourself that) says Brights are naturalistic and defines this, "A naturalistic worldview is absent any presumption of forces or entities beyond what can be observed/measured." Given your comments on religion above, I'm wondering whether you qualify? It's one thing to express tolerance for the religious view and respect for those who hold it, quite another to say that it has been generally positive and "served humanity well."

As to my post, I just think any dialogue that includes the phrase, "I am a Bright!" is doomed to awkwardness.

I don't have to believe a philosophy is correct to think it holds value, do I?

Many religions teach us not to rape, not to murder, not to steal, to be honest, to respect our neighbors, and so on. Do I have to hold that those religions are correct in order to believe these values have served humanity well? On the flip side, when atheists like Stalin violate all these basic tenets, do I have to hold their philosophies in equal respect?

In a world full of dishonesty and violence and enemies to freedom, I say "praise the lord and pass the ammunition."

Oh, I wouldn't say Bush bashes "brights". He just doesn't seem to acknowledge the existence as Americans of any non-believer. Here's an example from the last State of the Union Address:

"We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not know -- we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history. "

My new invented word usage is to call anyone who adopts the new usage of the word "bright" a " vain." Dean, you are a vain. Now understand, this noun "vain" is wholly unrelated to the adjective "vain." Further, I am not implying that people who don't use the word "bright" as a noun are, say, humble.

"Vain" was just a random word chosen and is meant to have no positive or negative connotations. Nonetheless, I, I expect it to catch on.

Dean, a very interesting post. Wish I had more time to comment on your mention of George Santayana-- over the years, I've read Santayana's three-volume autobiography (Persons and Places, The Middle Span, and My Host the World) more times than I can count. The theological and philosophical points where Santayana and I would be in agreement are minimal at best, but I've always very much enjoyed and admired Santayana as a thinker, a writer, and a human being.

Now, back to running through my sermon for this morning one last time!

Ah, but Kathy: not mentioning a certain subgroup is not the same as bashing it. He doesn't mention the polytheists or the ancestor worshippers or the animists or the theosophists either, but is that "bashing?" I can live with the fact that most people in America are monotheists, and am comfortable with that.

Mark: Okay, no problem. My ego doesn't get bent out of shape over things like this. Out of curiousity, do you call heterosexuals "gloomy" because your nose is out of joint over the word "gay?" Just curious. :-)

I am more or less of the same opinion as Dennett, and I too have a university-trained mind. But I don't know about this "Bright" stuff. I like neither labels nor euphemisms, politically correct or otherwise. Thus, I absolutely never refer to homosexuals as "Gay", as most of you know by now. And Afro-Americans are still Blacks; Native-Americans still Indians; Hispano-Americans still Mexicans, Cubans, whatever.

I would have to let you all in on my observations through a long life, which have enabled me to cross paths with some rather vapid atheists and agnostics and homosexuals who walk about in a black cloud of fitful sadness. (As if they had just sat through some Japanese Noh drama, which I understand leave their Tokyo audiences with some weird combination of haunting sadness and cheering that they were brought to this mood by a staged tragedy.)

As for the substance of Dennett's stuff. What the world needs is fewer half-ass pressure groups agonizing over this or that imagined slight to their dignity. A group of highly-placed academics, including scientists, mathematicians, economists and others with "Mensa" all but tatooed on their foreheads, hardly is entitled to bitch about their punctilio being punctured over the religiousness of their anti-religious beliefs. Maybe they take themselves too seriously.

Like others who have commented here, I know of nobody who knocks unbelievers or religious eclectics in this most Imperial Roman of all possible societies.

Besides, assaults from true believers can be turned into fun. Every now and then, I get a visit out here from a carload of Jehovah's Witnesses who drive out to convert me. I let them talk at me for a while. Then I ask them if they know anything about the REAL bible. At that point, I drag out a Hebrew language tora and let 'em have it with both barrels. Makes my day. (I learned to read some of this stuff in Jerusalem a long time ago.)

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Just reading the words "bright meme" gives me the "you kids get off my lawn!" willies. I encourage active examination of one's beliefs, but I wish there had been more thought given to this naming business. Of course, yall could end up being called Dennettians, or something really horrid.

Dean,

I've been tracking your sociological and religious beliefs for quite some time now and have a few comments:

1. hmmmm, interesting.
2. Is that your mind or did an etch-a-sketch explode?
3. What is the holy hell are you saying?!?
4. I mostly agree with you...what the hell am I saying?!?
5. There are more kind atheists out here than you think.
6. Run for office someday...as a democrat.
and the kicker....
7. I betcha that deep down inside...Bill Clinton is also a "Bright"

Tim the Soldier

Dean,

How do you reconcile a "naturalistic worldview is absent any presumption of forces or entities beyond what can be observed/measured...", and "I am not a materialist, for I don't believe everything that exists must be seen and felt..."?

If something cannot be seen or felt (interacted with physically) yet has an absolute existence, is it not by definition supernatural?

Also, metaphysical materialism has no more to do with crass commercialism than metaphysical idealism has to do with making the perfect the enemy of the good. Materialism is simply the belief that only matter is real, and that all phenomena are manifestations of matter in motion. Idealism is the belief that matter itself is only an idea that we use to explain the behavior of objects in the physical world, that it has no independent existence from ourselves, and that ultimately reality is an idea in the mind of God.

Personally I incline to the latter point of view because I find it allows for a fuller more enriching (indeed one might even say "brighter") existence.

Arnold: I mostly find this "bright" a charming intellectual concept. I certainly don't feel oppressed, but as I sit here chuckling over what I think is a delightful notion, I'm bemused by the strongly negative response it seems to invoke.

Paul: I note, Reverend Burgess, that you are one of the few who is skeptical but unoffended and somewhat amused. Which doesn't surprise me in the least. A man who's secure about what he believes doesn't feel defensive about it. (And yes, that is a compliment.)

Tim: Exploding Etch-A-Sketch on acid, my good man, with a beer chaser. If I ever ran for office, I'd run in whatever party I thought gave me the best chance of winning. Parties exist to serve the voters and their ideas, not vice versa. ;-)

By the way, you're coming to the party, right?

Carl: Well, I go back the movie Contact. Jodie Foster's character, an atheist, has an affair with a theologian. He told her about a deep spiritual experience he once had that led him to believe in God. She invoked Occam's Razor, and asked if it wasn't more likely that he just had a deep psychological need to believe. He responded by asking her if she loved her father. When she said, "yes," he asked a simple question: "can you prove it?"

2+2 is an ultimate truth, but I can only demonstrate it by example. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle proves that at a certain level, certainty dissolves. Furthermore, there are clearly forces in the universe that we simply do not understand. Just pursuing one of those, a universal theory of gravitation, consumed most of Einstein's life, and he failed.

An important aspect to my worldview is that "I don't know for sure, I can only assign probabilities or tell you what my gut tells me" is always an acceptable answer when you don't know for sure.

Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone? I'm pretty sure he did. Is there life after death? I'm sorry to say that I'm pretty sure there isn't. Is there life on other planets? I'm pretty sure there is, but I can't say until we find some. Does the Bible describe real events? I'm pretty sure that, for the most part, it does not.

Yet I am completely unthreatened being surrounded by people who think that I am wrong. If I weren't, I'd have had to kill Ara Rubyan years ago, because he sure thinks that an awful lot. ;-)

But one day you'll all learn! Soon you'll see that Dean Is Right About Everything (DIRAE, the universal principle of Dean's World), and you will make me your King! Surely then universal peace and prosperity will rule the Earth.

Or maybe not. ;-)

Dean,

I must paraphrase Inigo Montoya from "The Princess Bride"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I do not think you are a bright like you think you are a bright. ;-P

I can see that use of the term "bright" is an attempt to avoid the monomaniacal negative implications of atheist and agnostic. I agree, though, that it implies a put-down, just as the use of "progressive" by certain leftists implies a put-down of the right.

As for things unseen and unfelt, the latest word from the ever-changing field of physics is that 90% of the universe is made of of WIMPs, weakly interacting massive particles, which so far defy direct detection.

On the criterion of the absence of a belief in God, I might call myself a bright, except that I take far too dim a view of life to qualify.

I don't have a problem with the recently assigned content to 'bright," I have a problem with the overweening strut and pose in the tone of the word as used. It reeks of smarm and hubris.

Perhaps every one who likes this term, and I agree a term for this state of belief is needed, should take a little trip to some steakhouse bar in Oklahoma and spend the evening proclaiming to those assembled, "I'm a bright!"

I shall wait here for your return.

Pejman eviscerates Dennet and the whole "bright" concept.

Ooo . . . Pejman's on fire.

Dean, if the bright meme was in your hands (and the hands of other thoughtful nonbelievers), I wouldn't be so damned skeptical, but when I read on the bright website, "We are forming a constituency of Brights for social and political action," I cannot help but think that you aren't a representative bright.

The people in charge of the bright meme want to make being atheist a matter of left-wing identity politics. (You see this in Dennett's piece also.) If you persist on claiming this meme, are you going to turn into the "bright Ward Connerly" or perhaps create a bright association that mimicks the Log Cabin Republicans?

Dean says,
"An important aspect to my worldview is that "I don't know for sure, I can only assign probabilities or tell you what my gut tells me" is always an acceptable answer when you don't know for sure."

There is a name for that particular worldview Dean, it is called agnosticism.

I'm not entirely sure what Jodie Foster has to do with my question. Unless you are trying to say that you believe in things like "the power of love" or indeed that there is even such a thing as love, and not merely electro-chemical impulses in your brain that produce the illusion of emotion in a non-existent self.

If that is the case then you are engaging in pure mysticism.

Now, the very first thing on the http://the-brights.net/ web site is a statement, "A Bright's worldview is free of
supernatural and mystical elements."

I begin to suspect Bryan might be onto something ;)

It is the strong scent of Pride that many respond to in the use of the word "Bright" to describe someone's view of the world. Reading CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity" will give further explanation to this instinctive reaction.

I'm increasingly appalled at the number of people who think that Pejman's waste of bandwidth said something intelligent about the subject. He misrepresents (or misunderstands) Dennett in several places.

I think one can intelligently state "Based on what I know of the universe, I don't believe that there is a God. Nevertheless, I understand that my knowledge is incomplete, I could be wrong. I would be surprised to be wrong and I'm confident that I'm right, but I could be wrong. Heck, I could be a brain in a jar for all I know." To me, that's something different than agnosticism.

Interestingly, Carl, Dennett has several books on precisely the subject you discuss, all worth reading.

Dean,

The United Methodist Church, which Bush is a follower, is 100% against the death penalty, Pro-Choice on abortion, against alcohol consumption, any form of gambling and was officially opposed to the Iraq war II. Funny how your guy sticks to his Methodist beliefs....

Tim the Soldier

Well I thought the point was that the president can't just "believe" something and make it so. Don't the people who live in the country have a say in one or two things?

-dowingba the worthless civilian

Matthew: The "Ward Connerly of the brights." I like that. Especially since Ward Connerly is a true hero to me.

Sharon: So, you've got problems with Christians who are proud of their Christianity, right? :-)

Tim: There is a schizm within the Methodist church over many of these issues--there are, indeed, two basic types of Methodist. You may one to check out Reverend Donald Sensing's One Hand Clapping for more on that.

Max,

This is the definition of an agnostic from dictionary.com;

ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

I think that definition adequately covers this statement,

"Based on what I know of the universe, I don't believe that there is a God. Nevertheless, I understand that my knowledge is incomplete, I could be wrong. I would be surprised to be wrong and I'm confident that I'm right, but I could be wrong. Heck, I could be a brain in a jar for all I know."

or this one;

"An important aspect to my worldview is that "I don't know for sure, I can only assign probabilities or tell you what my gut tells me" is always an acceptable answer when you don't know for sure."

Dean, I checked out Reverend Donald Sensing's site. Thanks. I'm going to be a regular reader of his site and, although I am a bright, my roots are in the UMC. I still regularly read their articles of faith. I will try and post some of their beliefs when the time is right.

Tim the Soldier

Dean, if you wanna be Ward, more power to you, brother. If you and other thoughtful skeptics want to wrest control of the bright meme away from the folks set to turn it into just another grievance group, you have my full support.

Tim: You'll really like Sensing. He's also a former Army chaplain! (Or was he a Marine? Argh, can't remember.)

Carl: Yes, I would agree that agnosticism defines me more or less.

Sensing is a former Army artillery officer & currently a Methodist minister.

Dean, ya know I luvs ya, being my Blog Daddy and all, but I think you are yet again making a fine line mistake on the understanding of the word "Pride."

Please read the chapter where CS Lewis addresses what Pride means in his book "Mere Christianity."

I just completed the book myself..and wondered why the heck it took me so long.

There is a difference, Lewis says between being Proud of Christianity, and Proud IN Christianity.

Please read it. I think you will understand.

Thoughtful, well written post, Dean, but it does not consider that the phrase "I'm a Bright!" has many other commonly accepted meanings, including:

1) I am dying for big guys to give me a swirly, wedgie, or pantsing. How about all three?

2) I give all within earshot the right to laugh or make sardonic comments whenever I do something that is, well, not to bright. This right is irrevocable and permanent, even if my beliefs change.

3) You are also free to derive, guilt-free, what amusement you will from my strangely arrayed underwear, lack of trousers, and new hairstyle.

4) I really, really, really don't want to have intercourse, sexual or social, with any desireable member of the opposite sex.

Me, I would be looking for a label with less baggage.

I with you on your belief system, but if it's all the same to you, I think I'll just continue to call myself an atheist who is not absolutely certain God does not exist.

It fascinates me that atheists and humanists feel the need to label themselves at all. Sounds like insecurity to me. They could call themselves Bright-Americans. Jesus is that pretentious, or what?

I do not know about life after death as I have yet to be rendered dead. However, if someone out there has empirical evidence to the lack of life after death, in any form, I am all ears.

I find it hard to understand why some atheists and freethinkers on this board shy away from the connotations of the term "bright" so readily. *Of course* it means that we consider the superstitious to be, to some degree, dim, if they persist in their unfounded beliefs. That doesn't mean they can't be clever or wise in many other ways, and "brights" can't be stupid in some respects. After all, Gays are "gay" all the time. But as a meme, the label gay is eminently suited to describe people who have come out of their sexual closet. Why not give those who actually think sense about religion the credit of being "bright"? Forget political correctness. It's time to stand up for what we know.

Both the terms atheist and agnostic in the common usage are totally incorrect ways to identify people. If someone does not believe in God, then they are an atheist, whether their disbelief is fanatic or not. This is simply because atheist means not a theist, i.e. not a person who believes in God. The term agnostic deals not with belief, but with knowledge. So perhaps we can identify fanatics of any stripe as gnostics. An atheist gnostic is fanatic to the same basic degree as a theist gnostic because they are incapable of saying that they simply believe something instead of "know" it to be true. If their belief in this matter could be incorrect, their entire way of thinking falls apart. However, both theists and atheists can be agnostics, which I think covers most people, regardless of faith. In any case, although I am a theist, I've never thought of the terms "atheist" or "agnostic" as having a negative connotation. Maybe the problem is not that we need a new word, but that we have to come to an understanding that they are descriptives, not judgements. That's not going to happen no matter what you call yourself, until it is okay with all religious people for you to not believe. And I think that it will similarly be necessary for all atheists to find it okay that theists believe and to not allow that to prejudice them against us. Theism and atheism are equally unfounded.

So I've read the entire http://www.the-brights.net site, and the articles by Dawkins and Dennet, and James Randi's announcement. I've also read dozens of blogs and minor opinions on this subject, including the language purists mourning the continuing perversion of our precious Mother Tongue, and the old skool freethinkerz who say that if Atheism was a good enough term for God then it's sure as hell good enough for me (and who wants political influence anyway,) and the religionists who describe themselves with factual, completely non-smug adjectives such as "Chosen," "Washed," or "Saved" but who inexplicably have yet to accept the obvious appelation "Gloomy" to describe their heterosexuality (and who would never stoop so low as to denigrate the other-faithed while insisting athiests [sic] must have a God-shaped hole where their religion ought to be,) and the red-faced who think terms like "meme" and "bright" are just too gosh darned cute and silly to trot out in public, and the ad hominem name-callers who can't think of anything better to say.

And my conclusion is: I'm a bright.

How well do you know your Bushes?

1. In what state was George W. Bush born?

2. During WWII, George W. Bush's grandfather and great-grandfather's companies had property seized by the US government for what wartime crime?

3. What elected office did Prescott Bush eventually hold?

4. What does the W. stand for?

5. During the 2000 Republican National Convention, W. joked that he had broken his marriage vows. Which vow did he break?

6. In 1963, Laura Bush (nee Welch), ran a stop sign in a new car and accidentally killed fellow high school student Michael Douglas. What was the relationship between Laura and Michael?

7. Which Bush owned Silverado Savings and Loan in the 80s?

8. How much did the failure of Silverado cost the US taxpayers?

9. Texas law mandates that gubernatorial records be placed in a state archive subject to Texas's stringent Public Information Act. What has happened to the papers of Gov. Bush?

10. In 1980, the pilot of an airplane claimed that George Bush Sn, running for VP, flew to Paris to meet with representatives of Ayatollah Khomeini to help ensure the Reagan/Bush victory in the presidential election. Who was one of the pilots who died in that same plane in 1988?

11. When Reagan was shot in 1981 by John Hinckley, who was Neil Bush having dinner with that day?

12. Where was Bush when informed of the Sept. 11 attacks, and what was his immediate response?

13. What religion is George HW Bush?

14. What religion is George W. Bush?

15. What religion is Jeb Bush?

16. When W. announced that he was changing religions, what did his mother do?

17. Where does W. have a brand, received as part of a frat initiation?

18. When did W. first run for public office? Who was his major backer?

19. W.'s uncle Jonathan is barred from brokerage trading in what state?

20. Hours after a US spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet, which Bush was on his way to China?

Bonus Question:

21: After George W. Bush admitted he lied about his arrest record and 'fessed up to a conviction on drunken driving', what was his response to questions about other arrests?

ANSWERS:

A1. George W. was born in New Haven Connecticut, July 6, 1946, a fact not mentioned on his Official White House bio.

A2. The U. S. government investigated both Bert Walker and Prescott Bush, and under the Trading with the Enemy Act and seized all shares of Union Banking, including shares held by Prescott Bush. The government held that "huge sections of Prescott Bush's empire had been operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had greatly assisted the German war effort."

A3. Senator from Connecticut 1952-1963.

A4. Walker, the last name of his great grandfather, who was very involved with aiding the Nazis in WWII.

A5. On bended knee proposing to Laura he promised that she would never, ever have to give a political speech.

A6. While most accounts of the accident are non-committal, a review of her biography says he was a good friend and one site says High School Sweetheart and another asserts fiance and the satirical but generally factually accurate whitehouse.org site's bio of her claims Michael was Laura's then-serious boyfriend. She calls this poignant episode a very tragic time in my life; indeed, her official White House biography doesn't mention any part of her life prior to her college graduation.

A7. Neil Bush. Details of the collapse blame it on falling oil prices.

A8. Neil's incompetent, and possibly illegal "ethical disability" in running of Silverado cost taxpayers over a billion dollars, and led to him getting fined by the SEC".

A9. He put them in his father's Presidential library, out of reach of public.

A10. Salem bin Laden, younger brother of Osama.

A11. Scott Hinckley, brother of John.

A12. On Sept. 11, he was in Florida, reading his favorite book, The Very Hungry Caterpillar, to kids. When informed of the attack, he kept reading, and finished the book. He later lied about Air Force One being a target, and bolted to a military base and still hasn't come clean about that day.

A13. Poppy Bush is Episcopalian.

A14. W. is Methodist.

A15. Jeb is Catholic.

A16. Called Billy Graham.

A17. On his butt. "The resulting wounds only resembled 'a cigarette burn' claimed W."

A18. W. Ran for Congress in 1978, backed by Enron and employees. Though Enron itself was formed from two oil companies in 1985, W. claimed at the time, "There's no such thing as being too closely aligned with the oil industry in West Texas."

A19. Massachusetts.

A20. W.'s Uncle Prescott Bush.

A21. This is a trick question. He has never answered questions about his OTHER arrests or explained about his interesting new Texas drivers license number.

As a professional philosopher, Daniel Dennett surely is familiar with the significant number of very distinguished professed believers in his field: Hilary Putnam, Richard Swinburne, Elizabeth Anscombe, Michael Dummett, Alvin Plantinga, William Alston, Peter Van Inwagen, Bas Van Fraasen, and so on. Anyone who denies this is either a fool or not conversant with contemporary philosophy. So -- how does he propose to get around this counterfactual? I suspect he cannot, which is why he did not bring it up, the way a more honest atheistic philosopher, Thomas Nagel, did in his "The Last Word" (pp 130-131, Oxford Univ Press).

Here is the quote from Nagel: "...I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope that there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."

It is very hard to believe that Dennett is not familiar with that quote, the list of philosophers I quoted earlier or the distinguished line of theists in the history of philosophy, including, of course, Descartes and Kant.

It is lamentable that a philosopher resort to providing only one-sided evidence in support of his case. It is perhaps even more lamentable that he set up the various straw men that he does (the Tooth Fairy et al). Dennett's quarrel is with an eight-year old believer, not with adults. Sadly it is what we have become accustomed to from fundamentalist atheists like Dennett, Kurtz, Dawkins and their ilk.

dsl angebot dsl dsl dsl tarife dsl flatrate isdn xxl dsl bestellen dsl dsl flatrate dsl dsl dsl angebote 1&1

Dean, Thank you for your comments. As a new Bright, I was on the verge of being discouraged by some of the far-out comments of some of the e-mail exchanges. Your comments very much reflect my positions and encourage me to continue. I have, however, made the mistake of mentioning this meme movement to friends who are appalled and, probably, definitely not soul mates. There is a risk in 'coming out'. But that seems better than pretending to believe obsolete, impossible, mythological, supernatural stories when there is a world view based on nature and science that works equally well without a fear factor.